.LS 



'}>;;■ 



m 






■ 



'CC C :<ic 
C C ci-.cc 

CCC^Cc , 
CCC;ft 



(C C C cc 



» CO.cc 

. CC cc 

I CC CC 

CC c 

>. CC<CC 
-^ cc c 

£ CCce 



C *C c 

c *cc 
c cc 



: ccc 

1 

CC 

c c < 

CC c 
cc 



sapeaaiSQgsaagfflOEgQgagg" ^ ^ 



| LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. § 



: CCC 

: CCC 
c ccc 

c ccc 
C CCC 



cC 

cc «. 
cc c 
CC Cc 
c c c 

CC c 

cc c 
cc c 

CC c 

(C c 
c.c < 

Cc CC 

Cc cc 

^ ss 

Cc CC 

re re 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



•- vC C Cv ' 
C (C'C Cv < [ 

C CC«7 



\N 


: cc 


: cc 


C cc 


c cc 


C cc 


cc cc 


CC CC 


c cc 


C CC 


c re 



C CCC cc 

C CCC « 
c C CCC « 
c C ccc 

c CccC 

< c_ccc 

rC CCCC 

c Cccc 
< CCCC 

c 

i c 



c 


: ;CC 


CC 


c 


c cC 


cc 


*c 


" c C 


Ci 


C( 


o 


4 


> cC C 

C c c 


< 


C 


i "-■ ? 




CC c 


C C 






C C 






c < 






C i 




cc 


c 


' 


cc 


c 




CC 


c 




cc - 

a c 
cc c 


< 

< 




cc C 






cr c 





& c 



Cc c 



4L <- <■= 



-I" 



c: c 






c c «*c • 
l 

C C CC c 
CC c 

<C cc 

: ctfciccc 

CCC 

c CCC 
c c CCC 

cc c? 

C < i 

CC ccc 

CC Cv CCCc < 

ccc< 

cccc 
C C < ,CiCC c 

: c < cccc t 
r c ■ vcccc c c 
<cccc c c 
c ccrccc c ' 
J ccc c c 

i care r 
c cccc c 

cc c c 

c <cc c c 

c sttc c . 

cc c c 

cc c c 

;< ccc c 

CC cc c c 
Cf ccc c 

ccc <c 

c c £C 

cc CCC <>C 

cc cc 

cc< ^v 

c ccc cc 

<CC c< 

r c CCCC c< 

c q <cc 5 

C <* CCCC < 

r C_ C <CC 

c: c <* cccc 

CC^cccx 
c c> cccc 

c_ C« CCCc. 

CCc cccc 
C C dgt < 
C C« <Cc 
7l c «CC 

c c «cc 

c c c<:c 
= c c ccc 
c c c <crc 
: c c ccc 

t c c CC c 

Z CCCC:^ 





; < 




c 






v CO ( 




w S 




, < 




CCC ( 




c Pm I 




: ££c i 

ml 







5S 



/ST « 

CC c 



^ cc c 

^ C< c 



c 

c 



cc «:. c c 
ccc: cc 



ccc cc 

CCC c c 



m 






9 cc 

cc « 
c<i< 

cc « 

CC ' 



C ? S ' 

I 

% £ CCC 

if IS 

< 'CCC 



c C c V 

c c > V ^ v 

tltf i 



c cc 

c cc 
c cc 

c <ic 



CC c 

p 

% 



c\ 
^ C 

. V f ccc 

cc a^ 
S c c Ccc c 



■ ^ I 

' S c 

? c ' 

■■v c 

^- 

S C cc 

S'C c c 



C < Cc 
C r CC 
* : ■< Cc 
\ c C C 



cc cc 



cc SS < C c v 



CC 
CC 

c cc 
c cc 

C CC 

c cc 

CC cc, 
cc « 



^CC i 

f cc 
c cc 

f cc 
cc 

'CCC 

• A v 

— cc 

■ 



CCc cc 

^IC cV ( 

C'CC 



/ 






REVIEW 



OF THE 



TESTIMONY 



ISSUED BY THE 

ORTHODOX SECEDERS FROM THE MONTHLY MEETINGS OF 
WESTBURY A>D JERICHO, 



AGAINST 



ELIAS HICKS, 



BY EVAN LEWIS. 




NEW-YORK : 



PRINTED BY A. MING, JR. BEEKMAN-STREET, 

Two doors below PearJ-streefc 

1829, 

9h 






4 It* tot $ 



*til- 



- 



PREFACE. 



■ « n> »^^9 4« f»- 



The Testimony against Elias Hicks, opens a wide 
field, for examining the principles and doctrines, of the 
society of Friends. These doctrines and principles are 
said to be denied by him ; and upon his supposed denial 
of them, is founded the proceedings against him as an 
individual ; and the voluntary separation of his oppo- 
sers from the society. Hence the question at issue 
between" Friends, and those who have separated them- 
selves from their communion, is to be decided, upon the 
truth or falsehood of the charges exhibited against 
Elias Hicks. It is a question which embraces, not his 
case alone, but that of the body to which he belongs. 
It is not so much a personal, as a general interest, in- 
volving, in its consequences, the religious character and 
standing of, probably, sixty thousand individuals in the 
United States, as well as unborn generations. Do 
these sixty thousand persons, entertain opinions at va- 
riance with some of the fundamental doctrines of the 
Christian religion ? Or do the Friends of the present 
day, profess a religion, essentially different from that of 
their predecessors of the 17th century ? These are 
the questions at issue, and these are the points to be de- 
cided, upon the merits of the document we have been 
reviewing. If this instrument is correct — if the charges 
and allegations it contains, are true,— then we have not 



only denied the faith of primitive Friends, but we have 
also adopted, as a part of our system of religion, doc- 
trines and opinions at variance with those of Chris- 
tianity — or, in other words, we are an association of 
deists, and infidels. 

In joining issue with those who have separated from 
the body, and who are now endeavoring to destroy its 
religious character in the world, we have not been in- 
fluenced by any personal considerations. It is the gen- 
eral interest we have in view. Neither has the least 
feeling of unkindness to any of those who are common- 
ly called Orthodox Friends, dictated our strictures upon 
this testimony. There is not a doubt, but many of 
them, honestly believe they are in the right. And while 
we are disposed freely to admit their undoubted privilege 
to differ from us, and feel that their honest opinions are 
entitled to due deference and respect, we must be per- 
mitted to express our full conviction, that they have 
erred in vision, and stumbled in judgment, with respect 
to the true character of the doctrines and principles of 
primitive Friends, as well as of those entertained by 
Friends of the present day. 

We admit that there are passages in the works of 
our predecessors, which if construed according to the 
letter, may appear to be favorable to their views. But 
it must be observed that those parts, which are suppos- 
ed to suit their purpose best, are mostly expressed in 
scripture terms ; which amounts only to a confession, 
that they believed the scriptures. We too believe them. 
We have proved that Elias Hicks believes them. The 
difference then consists in a different construction of 
some parts of these writings. 

The ideas intended to be conveyed by Friends, in the 
language of scripture, may be very different from those 
which it may be supposed to represent. For any form 
of expression, can only be a representative, or sign of 
the ideas of the speaker or writer, and may represent a 



5 

very different train of ideas in the hearer, or reader. 
Hence disputes are sometimes conducted with great 
zeal and pertinacity, between persons, whose real opin- 
ions, When rightly explained, do not materially differ. 
Many religious controversies if closely examined, will 
be found to be disputes about terms, rather than things. 
Hence the necessity in all controversies of having pre- 
cise and definite ideas of the meaning of the terms used, 
and in no case is this more necessary than in disputes 
about religion, or the doctrines of the scriptures. What 
has been the uniform opinion of Friends concerning 
them ? " That the spiritually minded man only, can 
make a right use of them." — " That they are only to 
be understood to edification, by the light of the spirit." 
— " That the natural man cannot comprehend the 
things of God" (nor the revelations made to his servants) 
" because they are spiritually discerned." When our 
predecessors gave their own views of the doctrines of 
the New Testament, in their own language, and under 
the guidance of that light and life, by which many of 
them were eminently enlightened, we find them to coin- 
cide in a very remarkable manner, with those found in 
the discources of Elias Hicks. And the more closely 
we examine, and compare their explication of christian 
doctrine with each other, the more striking this coinci- 
dence appears. We thus perceive that they under- 
stand the scriptures in the same way. By a careful 
perusal of Friends' works, it would seem, that their 
understanding of many parts of the scriptures, was very 
different from that of many of those now called 
Orthodox. 

The latter construe them more literally, the former 
more spiritually. Hence these stumble at the expositions 
of Elias Hicks because more spiritual than theirs ; though 
his are in perfect accordaace with those of ancient 
Friends, as we have endeavored to prove in part, in 
the following review. Our limits would not admit of 



6 

going more extensively into the comparison, and exhib- 
iting more fully the perfect coincidence of faith and doc- 
trine, between Elias Hicks, and primitive Friends. The 
subject admits of a very copious illustration. They 
preached the same Lord — the same faith — the same bap- 
tism. The same Saviour—the same light and life, which 
is the light and life of men. They worshipped the same 
God, in spirit and in truth, who is over all — through all 
—and in us all, blessed for ever. Amen. 



New-York, 7 th Mo. Wtk, 1829. 



TESTIMONY. 



i; Elias Hicks, has been for many years, in the station 
of a minister in our religious society, and formerly well 
approved by us ; in which character he has tra- 
velled extensively, and obtained great influence with the 
members of the Society ; but for want of abiding in a 
state of humble watchfulness, in which, by the power of 
divine grace,he would have been preserved in the truth, he 
has become exalted in his mind ; 2. And giving way to 
a disposition of reasoning, has indulged in speculative 
opinions : 3. Asserting that we must always take things 
rationally. 4. And that we are not bound to believe 
any thing that we do not understand. 5. Thus declin- 
ing to be restricted within the limits of the christian 
faith, he has refused to yield his assent to religious truths 
which he cannot comprehend ; 6. And has imbibed and 
adopted opinions at variance with some of the funda- 
mental doctrines of the christian religion ; always be- 
lieved in and maintained by the society of Friends : 7, 
denied the existence or influence of an evil Spirit on the 
mind of Man, distinct from his natural propensities ; 
8. And has, in this state entertained doubts of many of 
the important truths declared in the Holy Scriptures ; 
especially as relates to the fall of man, and his redemp- 
tion by Christ ; 9. And in consequence, to call in ques- 
tion the divine authority of a great portion of the sacred 
writings, and even the authenticity of some parts 
thereof. 



lt>. He has extensively promulgated his views in con- 
versation, in writing, and in his public communications* 
endeavoring to destroy a belief in the miraculous con- 
ception of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; 11. un- 
dervaluing the miracles wrought by him ; 12. and 
asserting that he was but a man, as liable to fall into 
sin, and lose his condition, as the rest of mankind ; that 
he was on a level, and in a state of equality with them; 
an Isrealite, indued with a measure of divine grace in 
common with the children of Abraham ; 13. And that 
the principal end of his coming was limited to the Jews. 

24. And as he has denied the divinity of our Lord 
and Saviour Jesus Christ, he has totally rejected a be- 
lief in his holy offices ; his propitiatory offering for the 
redemption of mankind ; 15. and has denied his resur- 
rection and ascension into heaven, asserting that his 
body returned to the earth, where it will rest with our 
bodies to all eternity, and moulder into its mother dust ; 
16. He has also denied his mediation and intercession 
with the Father, as plainly set forth in holy writ. 

17. Under the specious and captivating pretence of 
increased spirituality, and advancement in light and 
knowledge, beyond our primitive Friends, and even be- 
yond the Apostles of our Lord, he has insinuated his 
unsound opinions into the minds of many of the mem- 
bers of our society, particularly within the limits of our 
own yearly meeting, and that of Philadelphia : 18. and 
having gradually prepared them to receive his views, 
he has induced great numbers to embrace them, and 
has at length become the leader of a sect (distinguished 
by his name, yet unjustly assuming the character of 
Friends), which first separated from the yearly meeting 
of Friends in Philadelphia, in the 4th month 1827, on 
the ground of difference in doctrine, as they state in 
their printed address. 

19. They held a separate meeting in that month, and . 
in the 6th and 10th months following, and also in the 



i) 

4th month 1828; which last meeting Elias Hicks at- 
tended, gave it his countenance, and received a minute 
of its unity with him and his services. 

20. In the yearly meeting of Friends in New- York, 
in the 5th month following, he encouraged and support- 
ed a large number of those separatists, in their intru- 
sion into said meeting, many of whom had been regu- 
larly disowned from the society ; yet he manifested his 
full unity with them, and with their meetings ; and 
also took an active part with his followers in their dis- 
orderly and tumultuous proceedings ; and continued in 
connexion with those of similar views, in holding a 
separate meeting, which they call a yearly meeting. 

21. Since that time, he has travelled into Ohio, 
Indiana and elsewhere, encouraging his followers, in 
holding meetings, in different parts of this continent, in 
opposition to the order of our society. 

22. His erroneous opinions, published to the world 
under his own signature, and also his printed sermons, 
which he has acknowledged to be generally correct, are 
recited and testified against, in the Epistle and Testi- 
mony of our last yearly meeting held in New- York ; 
and in the Declarations and Testimonies of the yearly 
meetings of Friends in Philadelphia, Virginia, North-Ca- 
rolina, Ohio, and Indiana, who are also supported there- 
in by the Testimonies of the yearly meeting of Rhode 
Island, and the minutes of the yearly meeting of Lon- 
don. Hence it is evident, that Friends of all these 
yearly meetings, remain united together, in the faith 
and fellowship of the Gospel. 

23. For a number of years past, many of his friends' 
have been deeply exercised on his account, and have 
been concerned, from time to time, tenderly to ad- 
monish and warn him ; but he being in a confident 
state of mind, their admonitions have not had the desir- 
ed effect ; 24. and the support which he received from 
many of his adherents, prevented the timely exercise 

2. 



10 

of the discipline, in his case, especially in the monthly 
and quarterly meeting of which he was a member; 
25. but the separation taking place at our last yearly 
meeting ; and this monthly meeting being now in a 
situation to extend the necessary care therein ; the 
same has been duly attended to, according to the order 
of our society, to convince him of his errors ; 26*. which 
having been in like manner rejected by him, it becomes 
our incumbent duty, for the clearing of truth, and our 
religious society, from the imputation of his unsound 
opinions, and the reproach thereby brought upon it, to 
testify and declare, that they are not, nor ever have 
been, the doctrines of the society of Friends. 27. And 
as we can have no unity with them, nor fellowship with 
him therein, we do hereby disown him, the said Elias 
Hicks, from being a member of the religious society of 
Friends ; desiring nevertheless, that through the con- 
victions produced by the operation of the Holy Spirit, 
he may be brought to a sense of his error ; and through 
sincere repentence, may obtain that salvation which 
is freely offered, by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 
Signed on behalf, and by direction of the monthly 
meeting of Friends of Westbury and Jericho, held at 
Westbury the 29th day of the 4th month, 1829. 

By Valentine Willetts, Clerk" 



The foregoing Testimony against Elias Hicks, pur- 
porting to have been issued " by direction" of a monthly 
meeting, is a unique production. It is not easy to de- 
cide, which ought to be admired most, the bold effront- 
ery of the charges it contains, or the follv ai.d presump- 
tion of its authors. We shall examine it in detail ; and 
shall consider each of the charges and allegations, in 
the order in which they occur in the instrument ; and 
accordingly we have numbered them, for the conveni- 
ence ©f reference. 



II 

1. " For want of abiding in a state of watchful- 
ness" &c. " he has become exalted in his mind." 

If by exaltation of mind we are to understand, that 
lie has risen superior to the narrow prejudices, and 
puerile notions of bigoted sectarians — that his mind 
lias been el e vat d above the fogs and mists, which en- 
velope the intellects of those whose religion is derived 
from no higher source than education and tradition, we 
at once acknowledge the truth of the charge. But if 
this exaltation of mind is to be viewed in any other light, 
or understood in a different manner, it is a gratuitous 
assertion, unsupported by any evidence : and therefore 
requires no refutation. 

2. " And giving way to a disposition of reasoning, he 
has indulged in speculative opinions" 

" Speculative," is defined, by our best lexicogra- 
phers to be something " theoretical, not practical." 
What those " speculative opinions" are, in which he 
has indulged, which are not " practically" applicable to 
the important interests of an immortal, accountable 
being, remains to be decided. We have yet to learn, 
that it is inconsistent with the standing and offices of a 
gospel minister, to indulge in a disposition to reason 
upon the doctrines and precepts of the Christian reli- 
gion ; and to examine, and understand the important 
duties enjoined by them. The great Apostle, who re- 
commended us to " prove all things" and to " hold fast 
that which is good" (I. Thes. 5 — 21) and advised, that 
" every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" 
(Rom. 14 — 5), would fall under the. same condemna- 
tion ; for he has left, in his Epistles, some rare speci- 
mens of his " disposition of reasoning." iiow are we 
to " prove all things," so as to be " fully persuaded in 
our own minds," unless we enter into a serious exami- 
nation ? And how can such examination be conducted 
to any useful results, if we have no " disposition" to ex- 
ercise our " reason." For we can examine or " prove" 



12 

nothing, but by the use of this faculty. If the framer* 
of this document had " given way to a (better) disposi- 
of reasoning," they would scarcely have introduced 
such frivolous charges as this, and that which immedi- 
ately follows. 

3. " Asserting that we must always take things ra- 
tionally." 

What then ! Is it heterodox to take things ration- 
ally ? Then, " by good consequence" as Wm. Penn 
says, it must be Orthodox to take things irrationally. 

If it was wrong in the estimation of his accusers, for 
Elias Hicks to advance such a sentiment, the converse 
of the proposition must, in their opinion, be right. For 
if not rationally, how are things to be taken ? There 
is no medium between the positive and the negative, 
between the rational and irrational. Why is this sen- 
timent made a ground of accusation against him, unless 
it is considered criminal and heterodox ? And if hete- 
rodox and criminal, the conclusion is irresistible, that 
in order to become sound and Orthodox Quakers, we 
must consent to take (or understand) things irrationally, 
foolishly, and nonsensically. This is the only fair and 
natural result, to which the position assumed by them 
will lead. And we are inclined to think, that in this 
instance Orthodoxy is consistent. The fabric of tradi- 
tional religion, and the dogmas of human invention, 
which constitute, what is'called, an Orthodox faith, will 
not bear the test of " rational" investigation. 

4. "And that we are not bound to believe any thing 
that we do not understand." 

I would ask these sage expounders of the law, and 
the testimony, what part of the bible, the book of disci- 
pline, or the writings of primitive friends, they find any 
law or precept, by which such an opinion is condemned. 
Did you ever give your assent to, or believe in an ab- 
stract proposition, until you understood the terms of 
the proposition ? Did ever a reasonable being possess 



13 

a rational belief in a thing of which it had no know- 
ledge or understanding ? Never. But though we can- 
not have a belief in a thing which the understanding 
does not perceive to be true ; yet this does not neces- 
sarily oblige us to deny that about which we know 
nothing. A proposition not understood is to us " as 
nothing." It is, as it regards the mind, a perfect noir- 
entity. We have no means of forming any judgement 
or belief about it. Belief and disbelief in an abstract 
proposition depends upon the perception of the under- 
standing. In the former it perceives its truth, in the 
latter its falsehood. But a thing not understood is 
neither believed in, nor denied. Historical belief is de- 
termined by the probabilities of the facts related, and 
the credibility of the testimony. In all cases, belief is 
the natural result of evidence — and that evidence is ad- 
dressed, or presented to the understanding, and must 
be of a kind and quality to produce conviction, other- 
wise we are left perfectly in the dark, and there can be 
no such thing as belief. 

But when sufficient evidence is furnished to convince 
the understanding, belief is a matter of course. — There 
is an involuntary assent of the understanding to the 
truth of a proposition, when it perceives the connexion 
and dependence of those ideas of which it is formed. 
But to suppose the mind can assent to the truth of any 
proposition without evidence, is as absurd, as it would 
be to assert, that the eye can perceive objects, or distin- 
guish colors without light. Evidence is to the mind, 
what light is to the eye. It is the medium through 
which all things are manifested. And belief is no more 
an act of the mind, than vision is an act of the eye. 
The faculty and the organ, are in both cases passive. 
There is a capacity in the eye to receive an impression 
of external objects, and to distinguish one object from 
another, through the medium of light. There is also 
a capacity in the mind to perceive truth and error, and 



14 

to distinguish the one from the other, through the me- 
dium of evidence. We open our eyes — and the light 
of the sun gives us a perception of the objects which 
surround us ; and we have no power to alter the nature 
of that perception : so in like manner, the mind being 
left free to receive the evidences of truth, belief is the 
natural result of this evidence, as much as \ision is the 
result of the solar rays. And this belief extends no 
further than the mind perceives, or understands. 

We are then, so far from being bound to believe what 
we do not understand, that it is impossible we should 
have any belief about a thing, of which the mind per- 
ceives, or knows nothing. 

We admit that there is such a thing as implicit faith, 
which does not necessarily imply any knowledge or un- 
derstanding of its object. 

The Mahomedan places implicit faith in the reve- 
lations and dogmas of the Prophet. The Roman Cath- 
olic in the decrees of Popes and Councils. But the 
true Christian's faith, according to Barclay, is founded 
on the evidence of God " speaking in the mind immedi- 
ately by his Spirit." And this " inspeaking word," 
must be intelligible to the mind — must be perceived by 
the mind, and is therefore understood. 

We believe in it, because we feci or perceive it to act 
intelligibly in the mind, and therefore understand it. 
And so far as we per civ it to ict, so for we believe, and 
no further. The testimony of others respecting the ef- 
fects of the action of the Spirit of God upon their under- 
standings, is always brought to the test of our own ex- 
perience, and is received or rejected according as it is 
corroborated or disproved, by what we have known in 
ourselves. 

Hence the foundation of that declaration so often 
made by primitive Friends, that no man can rightly un- 
derstand the inspired writings, but by the light of that 
Spirit by which they were written. If we do not feel in 



ft 

ourselves,- some corroborating evidence of their testi- 
mony, originating from the same source, we cannot 
properly understand them, nor consistently and ration- 
ally believe in them. Thus the spirit of God speaking 
immediately in the mind, is the only true foundation of 
the Christian's faith, and that which alone can qualify 
him to believe the testimony of inspired men. And it is 
an understanding faith — a living, operative faith — be- 
cause we know, in whom, and in what we believe. — 
Not a dead formal assent to other men's dogmas, and 
expositions of Christian duty and Christian doctrine. 

" Where thou hast borrowed this rule I know not, 
that a man must believe that he doth not understand, see- 
ing the apostle saith to the Romans, even of the Gen- 
tiles, who had not the Law nor the Scripture, that ihat 
which may be known of God was manifest in them : 
for by that it is manifest t ey understood the mind of 
God, and knew him ; for Paul saith further, when they 
knew God they glorified him not as God, but were un- 
thankful &c. and again, he that believes, must knoiv 
that God is, for none can believe in that which is not ; 
for, to persuade any to believe in uncertainties, which 
are not manifest in the understanding, doth rather beget 
unbelief and doubting, than true faith." — Francis Ho w- 
gilPs works, page 634. 

5 " Thus declining to be restricted within the lim- 
its of the Christian faith, he has refused to yield his as- 
sent to religious truths, which he could not comprehend." 

What are those " religious truths," to which he has 
"refused to yield his assent"? and if not understood, or 
''comprehended" (which in the application here made 
of the terms, means precisely the same thing,) how are 
we to know that they are "truths"? We have no crite- 
rion, by which to determine the truth or falsehood of 
any proposition, unless the mind perceives or "compre- 
hends," the evidence, by which its truth or falsehood 
is established. A "truth" not understood, is to us a 



16 

"secret thing." And "secret things belong unto God^ 
— but "those things which are revealed, belong unto us 
and to our children." (Deut. 29 — 29.) And if revealed, 
they must be understood. For to reveal a thing, is to 
impart a knowledge of it to the understanding. And 
when not so imparted it is a secret thing, in which we 
can have no immediate concern. I venture to assert, 
without fear of refutation, that there are no "religious, 
truths," necessary to be known, or to which we are un- 
der any obligation to " yield our assent," which are not 
easily understood. And if it were possible for us to be- 
lieve in, or "yield our assent to religious truths," not 
perceived or understood, it would be no merit in us, and 
therefore no crime to withold our assent. What did 
the Prophet mean by the declaration, that "though 
they say the Lord liveth, surely they swear falsely." 
(Jer. 5 — 2.) Does not the Lord live, eternal, immutable, 
self existent ? How then did they swear falsely, who 
said the Lord liveth ? 

They made a profession or declaration of a "reli- 
gious truth" which they diH not "comprehend ;" and it 
was charged upon them by the Prophet, as a crime. 
They were " living as without God in the world," and 
did not know in their own experience, the Lord to live 
and ruh in them. Hence a " religious truth," was in 
their mouths a falsehood, because not known and " com- 
prehended" by them. By which we are taught this im- 
portant lesson, to take nothing upon trust, but to know 
and understand those " religious truths" to which we 
"yield our assent," otherwise our hope will be no better 
than that of the hypocrite which peris heth. (Job, 7 — 17) 

"If any man will do his will he shall know, (and there- 
fore " comprehend") " the doctrine, whether it be of 
God." (John, 7—17) 

6 "And has imbibed and adopted opinions at variance, 
with some of the fundamental doctrines of the Chri?- 



17 

tian religion, always believed in and maintained by the 
society of Friends." 

We are not told what these " opinions" are. The 
charge however is of a serious and important nature, 
and requires more than a passing notice. It is very 
questionable, whether the accusers of Elias Hicks, had 
any precise and definite ideas, either of the fundamental 
doctrines of Christianity, or of the opinions entertained 
by him. In the first place, we shall endeavor to prove 
from the New-Testament, what are the fundamental 
doctrines taught in it ; and then to show their agree- 
ment with the doctrines and opinions inculcated by Elias 
Hicks, as well as those of primitive Friends. 

Jesus Christ taught the Jews, that upon the fulfilment 
of the two first commandments, hung all the Law and 
and the Prophets. " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God 
with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." 
— And, "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." 
(Matt. 22 — 37 — 39.) And again : in his prayer a short 
time before he was crucified, he says ; " This is life e- 
ternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, 
and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. " (John 17 — 3) 
And the apostle declares that " no man can say that 
Jesus is the Lord" (or Christ) "but by the Holy Ghost." 
(I. Cor. 12 — 3) Which is in exact agreement with the 
reply of our Lord to Peter when he declared, " thou art 
Christ the Son of the living God" (Matt 16—16) "Bless- 
ed art thou Simon Bar Jonah, for flesh and blood hath 
not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in 
Heaven." "And upon this rock will I build my church, 
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." 
What is this rock upon which the true Church is to be 
built? Nothing less than the revelation of the knowledge 
of the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath 
sent, by the Spirit of God ; whom to know, through the 
only medium by which this knowledge can be obtained, 

is " life eternal." For it was not " flesh and blood"— 

3 



IS 

not the natural powers and faculties of the man, but 
the Spirit of God, which gave to Peter, that certain and 
infallible conviction, that Jesus was the Christ, the Son 
of the living God ; — agreeably with the testimony of 
Paul already quoted. And this immediate revelation, 
is the foundation of all true knowledge in spiritual 
things ; according to numerous testimonies of Jesus 
Christ, and the Apostles, a few only of which we shall 
mention, in addition to the above, as being in them- 
selves conclusive. " The kingdom of God cometh not 
with observation, for behold the kingdom of God is with- 
in you." (Luke 17 — 20 — 21.) And if the kingdom is with- 
in us, the King, or power, which rules and governs in 
this kingdom, must be within also. F«;r where the 
Jcingd-m is, there the power must be which governs it. 
" For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the 
spirit of a man that is in him ; even so, the things of God 
knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." (I. Cor. 2 — 11) 
Parallel with Job. (32 — 8,) "There is a spirit in man," 
(that is, "the spirit of a man," his natural faculties,) 
" and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them (it) 
understanding." The word is nigh thee, even in thy 
mouth and in thy heart ; that is the word of faith which 
we preach." (Rom. 10—8. Deut. 30—14) " Of a truth 
I perceive that God is no respeeter of persons, but 
in every nation, he that feareth him and worketh 
righteousness, is accepted with him." (Acts 10 — 34) 
" The grace of God which bringeth salvation hath 
appeared unto all men, teach us" &c. (Titus 2 — 11) 
If then, to love the Lord our God with all our hearts, 
and with all our soul, and mind, and our neighbors as 
ourselves, be a virtual fulfilment of all the Law and the 
Prophets — If to know the only true God, and Jesus 
Christ whom he hath sent, be life eternal — If no man 
can say, in truth, that Jesus is Lord (or the Christ) but 
by the Holy Ghost — If a revelation, by the Holy Spirit, 
of the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he hatjk 



19 

sent, be the rock, upon which the true church is to be 
built — And if the kingdom of God is within us, and no 
man can know the things of God but by the Spirit of 
God — then from all this accumulation of incontrovertible 
testimony, it follows conclusively, that the immediate 
manifestation, revelation, and guidance of the Spirit^ 
is the only fundamental doctrine taught in the New- 
Testament ; and that upon which all the doctrines and 
precepts it contains depend, and in which they all centre. 
It is the only essential and fundamental doctrine of the 
Christian religion, swallowing up and comprehending 
all others. It is like the great luminary in the heavens, 
in the effulgence of whose beams, all other lights in cre- 
ation sink into comparative insignificance. But this is 
the doctrine which Elias Hicks preaches. It is the ba- 
sis of all his arguments — the life and soul of all his ser- 
mons — the Alpha and Omega of every discourse deli- 
vered by him. And he brings more scripture testimony 
in support of this fundamental doctrine of Christianity, 
than any public teacher we have ever heard. 

It is not thought necessary to adduce any evidence to 
prove this fact. It will scarcely be doubted by any. 
All who have heard him speak in public, or who have 
read his printed discourses, know that his primary ob- 
ject, and his leading concern at all times appears to be, 
to excite the attention of his audience to the gift of God 
in their own minds, and to induce obedience to its requi- 
sitions. This was also the doctrine of George Fox, and 
his cotemporaries. They testified, that the declara- 
tion of the prophets was fulfilled in their day, as it had 
been already, in part fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, 
when the Lord would " pour out his Spirit upon all flesh, 
and sons and daughters should prophesy." (Joel 2 — 28) 
And wherein " they should no more teach every man his 
neighbour, and every man his brother, saying know the 
Lord, for all should know him, from the least of them, 
unto the greatest of them. "(Jer. 31 — 34.) They declared 



20 

that the Lord had come to teach his people himself, by 
his Spirit ; and recommended all to " mind the light" — 
the witness for God in every man's conscience ; which if 
duly regarded, would teach them all things necessary to 
be known, in order to attain the end of their creation, — 
even the salvation of their souls. They believed and 
taught, that the comforter, even the Spirit of truth, 
which Jesus promised his disciples, he would pray 
the Father to send unto them ; which should be with 
them, and in them, is the same free gift of God's Holy 
Spirit, by which he leads and directs to final peace and 
happiness, all his obedient and devoted servants, in eve- 
ry age, and in every nation in the world. In short the 
doctrine of our worthy predecessors, and that preached 
by Elias Hicks now, is one and the same. It is the doc- 
trine of" internal light'" or the guidance of the Spirit of 
God, in all matters of faith and worship. It is the only 
fundamental doctrine of the New-Testament, in which 
all others are included and comprehended, as we have 
already briefly endeavored to prove. If our limits 
permitted, and the occasion required it, we could make 
numerous extracts from the writings of friends " of the 
first convincement," and from the printed discourses of 
Elias Hicks, to prove their exact coincidence in faith 
and doctrine : and all in perfect harmony and agree- 
ment with those of the New-Testament. Where then 
is the truth, or the justice of the allegation, that he has 
" adopted opinions at variance with some of the funda- 
mental doctrines of the Christian religion." 

What these "opinions" are, or what doctrines are 
deemed "fundamental," does not appear from this ar- 
ticle. Perhaps some light may be thrown upon the 
subject, as we proceed. 

7 " Denied the existence or influence of an evil spirit 
on the mind of man, distinct from his natural propensi- 
ties." 

Perhaps this is one of the "opinions" at variance 



21 

with those "fundamental doctrines." We shall take 
a little time to examine this subject, and its bearing up- 
on those doctrines. 

It would be a curious and interesting investigation, to 
trace the original source, from whence the notion is deri- 
ved, of a distinct spiritual agent without us, who is the 
cause of all the evil that exists in the world. This inves- 
tigation would carry us far back into the dark regions of 
remote antiquity — long antecedent to the promulgation 
of Christianity in the world — among a people sunk into 
the grossest ignorance and sensuality — who were called 
— and in many respects justly called barbarians, by their 
more enlightened neighbors, the Jews and Greeks. 

The Magian religion, which is still the prevailing re- 
ligion in some parts of Persia and India, to this day, is 
evidently the parent stock from w hich all the various 
absurd notions about a devil, or evil spirit distinct from 
man, have sprung. This religion seems to have been 
of very ancient date. We find it in Media and Persia, 
as long as we have any glimmerings of historical light 
to guide our inquiries. 

" Their chief doctrine was that there were two prin- 
ciples one of which was the cause of all good, and the other 
the cause of all evil ; that is to say God and the devil. That 
the former is represented by light and the other by dark- 
ness, as their truest symbols; and that of the composi- 
tion of these two, all things in the world are made." — 
" And concerning these two Gods, there was this differ- 
ence among them ; that whereas some held both of them 
to have been from all eternity, there were others that 
contended, that the good God onlv was eternal, and the 
other was created. But they both agree in this, that 
there will be a continual opposition between these two, 
till the end of the world ; that then the good God shall 
overcome the evil god, and that from thence forward 
each of them shall have his world to himself; that is, 
*he good God his world with all good men with him, and 



22 

the evil god, his world, with all evil men with him."— - 
Prideaux, v. 1, page 185. 

This is to all intents and purposes, the ground work 
of the vulgar doctrine on this subject, now held in 
Christendom. The common opinion is but a paraphrase 
of the Magian belief. And it is for presuming to doubt 
the soundness of the Magian faith, among other things 
equally "fundamental," that Elias Hicks is arraigned, 
before the august tribunal of the "Monthly meeting of 
Westbury and Jericho," as a heretick. 

This opinion of an individual power of evil is one of 
those corruptions of the purity of Christian doctrine, 
which took its rise in ignorance and superstition, and has 
been maintained and preserved by habit and early pre- 
judices, until it has, in the estimation of many, become 
an essential article of Christian faith. But if we will al- 
low ourselves the liberty of examining it without preju- 
dice, we shall find that it has no more necessary connex- 
ion with Christianity, than the leneal descent of the Pope 
from St. Peter, or the doctrine of transubstantiation. 
The opinion itself is pernicious in its effects, because, 
while it leads us to the persuasion that if we can only 
guard against the wiles and stratagems of this imagin- 
ary evil being without us, we have nothing to fear ; and 
thus causing us to neglect the enemies of our own 
house, evil habits and tempers, which according to the 
testimony of Je^-us Christ, are the worst we have to con- 
tend with. " A man's foes shall be of his own house- 
hold." (Matt. 10, 36.) And because it teaches us to 
believe there are two supreme intelligences, continually 
watching over the actions of men, the one for good and 
the other for evil, whose suggestions it behoves us e- 
qually to attend to, to guard against the one, and to 
profit by the other, instead of regarding the Almighty 
Creator and Preserver, as the source and foun- 
tain of all things, which do not proceed from the de- 
praved tempers and inclinations of men. 



23 

It may be supposed by some, that this vulgar notion 
of a devil is so interwoven with evangelical history, that 
any attempt to disprove the existence of such a being, 
must necessarily invalidate the testimony of the Apostles 
and Evangelists. But from a careful perusal of the pa- 
ges of scripture, connected with this subject, it is evident, 
that the terms which are undertood by many to imply 
an independent power of evil, are meant to express, in 
most cases, nothing more nor less than a spirit of op- 
position to the divine government personified. The 
word " Satan''' occurs but in a few instances in the Old- 
Testament. Once in I. Chron. 21 — 1, a few times in 
the book of Job.— Once in Psalms 109 — 6. Zech. 3 — 1, 
where he is said to stand at the right hand of Joshua to 
oppose him ; and means exactly what the word im- 
plies, an adversary, or opposer, and may either be a dis- 
position in the mind ; a man, or a combination of men, as 
it evidently was in the last case mentioned. The duty of 
restorer of the Jewish state, and the office of high priest 
were to be conferred on Zerrubabel, and Joshua. — but 
in the exercise of these duties they should meet with 
opposition from the adversary ; which is fully illustrated 
in the book of Nehemiah, where it will be seen who, or 
what the adversary, or "Satan" was. And in Chron- 
icles, it was David's pride that tempted him to number 
the people over whom he reigned, for which his heart 
smote him afterwards. 

In the New-Testament these terms occur more fre- 
quently. The word " Satan" more than thirty times, 
and " Devil " about fifty. But in most of these cases 
it is the evil habits and depraved tempers, that are thus 
denominated. In some instances the word " devil" is 
applied to bodily and mental diseases, which nobody 
will attribute to any other agency than that of the ope- 
ration of common natural causes. " Ought not this 
woman whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years. 
to be healed on the sabbath day." (Luke, 13. 16,) Can 



24 

we suppose for a moment, that Jesus meant to say an 
evil spirit had bound her body ? Christ is said in some 
instances to rebuke the evil spirits and cast them out. 
Thus, he " rebuked the devil, and he departed out of 
him, ,, and the lunatic child was healed. (Matt. 17. 18.) 
This was a case of madness — or mental derangement ; 
which proves beyond a doubt what is to be understood by 
the term devil in this instance, as well as by the word 
satan, in the case of the woman whose body had been 
bent for eighteen years. Again, " he rebuked the wind 
and the sea, and there was a great calm. (Matt. 8. 26. 
Mark, 4. 39. Luke 8. 24.) Was the wind a devil $ He 
rebuked the fever, and Simon's wife's mother was heal- 
ed. (Luke 4. 39.) Was this fever an evil spirit 9 He also 
rebuked Peter, and called him satan, " saying get thee 
behind me satan, thou savourest not the things of God." 
(Mark, 8. 33.) It is evident that the term is here used in 
its ordinary sense, to denote an adversary, or that which 
opposes the truth, as Peter did on this occasion ; and has 
no reference to any thing distinct from man. 

In what does this adversary consist, which opposes the 
truth ? Not in a distinct spiritual intelligence, possess- 
ing powers and capacities nearly allied to Omnipotence, 
as the doctrine seems to imply. For if such a being ex- 
ist at all, whence did he originate ? Is he uncreated, 
self-existent from all eternity ? To believe this we 
must adopt the very worst form the magian faith : and 
hence we have two self-existent Gods, one good, and 
the other bad. 

There is but one Creator, who made all things by the 
word of his power, consequently this evil being, if any 
such exist. But Moses tells us, (and we believe he was 
inspired by God to write as he did,) that God beheld all 
things that he had made and pronounced them very 
good. And our reason teaches us, that it is impossible 
for an infinitely wise and good being, to create any 
*hin£ that is not good. How then did this bein^ 



25 

become wicked ? By rebellion against the all wise 
Creator, saith the learned theologian : — by as- 
piring to be independent of God. But who tempted 
him to rebel? For the doctrine does not suppose 
him placed in a state of probation ; and if not, the 
supposition of his being tempted to sin, is ab- 
surd, if not impossible. Besides there was no tempter. 
But we Are told his pride tempted him. Y\ e answer no. 
For pride has no place in a happy, glorified spirit ; its 
supposed existence implies an impossibility. For where 
pride exists, or can enter, there is a probation, not perfect 
and unalloyed happiness* Again, if pride tempted Sa- 
tan, when a happy and glorified spirit, to rebel, could 
not self, which is pride in its insipient state, seduce our 
first parents, who were placed in a state of probation, to 
disobey the divine commands, without the intervention 
of a special tempter distinct from themselves, to prompt 
them to sin? The supposition in the latter case is per- 
fectly natural ; in the former absurd and even impossi- 
ble. And they who adopt the former alternative for the 
origin of evil, would find a much shorter, easier, surer, 
more rational, and more scriptural method of accounting 
for all the evil that exists in the world, by refering it to 
the wrong exercise of man's fiee-agency in his proba- 
tionary state. 

This is well described by Moses in his account of the 
fall of man ; in which he represents the serpent, (self) 
as more subtle than any beast of the field which the 
Lord God had made. Now it would seem that nothing in 
the outward creation, could be taken as a truer symbol 
of the cunning and artful workings of self in man, than 
the serpent. The insidious mannei in which he lies in 
wait for his prey, and the stratagems and wiles used to 
decoy it, are equalled only by the deceivableness of self 
in man, whose transformations, sometimes so nearly 
resemble the truth, or an angel of light, that we are a 
thousand times deceived by it ; and if it were possible? if 

4 



26 

would deceive even the very elect — those who have chosen 
God for their King and their Lawgiver. That the ser- 
pent is used by Moses as a symbol, and that self'is 
the thing signified, is as clear as any truth in the bible. 
Can we suppose for a moment, that by the serpent, 
is meant a fallen angel f The whole story taken literal- 
ly, upon such a supposition, would be a bundle of absurd- 
ities. But as an allegory, it is a beautiful representa- 
tion of the fall of man, and of the manner in which sin is 
brought into the world, without the help of a self-exist- 
ing spiritual agent, upon whom all the miseries conse- 
quent upon transgression are to be fathered. 

The origin of evil, is, like all other "religious truths," 
simple and easily understood. " God hath made man up- 
right, but they have sought out many inventions." [Ecc 
7 — 24.] It was necessary, in order that man might be 
a happy, or an accountable being, that he should be free 
to choose, in regard to those things,in which his account- 
ability and his happiness consisted. Hence nothing 
seems to be so sedulously guarded, in all the dispensa- 
tions of God to man, as his free-agency. Because it is 
the very condition on which his probationary state de- 
pends. It is that which constitutes his condition, a 
state of probation. His duty was clearly made known 
to him! "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest 
freely eat ; but of the tree of the knowledge of good 
and evil thou mayest not eat," (Gen. 2 — W.) And the 
consequences of his transgression were foretold him. 
Hence his whole business consisted in standing in sim- 
ple obedience to the Divine Will. But the moment he 
made a wrong choice — the moment he chose to act in his 
own will, independently of the Divine Will; that mo- 
ment sin commenced and evil took its rise, till which 
time thet e was no such thing as evil in the natural or 
spiritual creation of God. 

Thus the subtle resonings of his owe selfish inclina- 
tions seduced man from his allegiance to his €fod. His 



appetites and propensities, which were good in them- 
selves, because created by infinite goodness, and neces- 
sary in this state of probation, being indulged beyond 
the limitations of Divine Truth, became the medium of 
sin, by his lusting after that which was forbidden. He 
needed no devil to tempt him to indulge his propensi- 
ties to excess. If he did not keep the garden of his 
own heart, and dress it, in obedience to the councils of 
infinite wisdom — if he did not govern and regulate the 
natural passiotis and inclinations of his animal body, 
which he had power given him to do ; the earthly na- 
ture would bring forth thorns and thistles to wound his 
precious life, instead of the wholesome and spiritual 
fruits of righteousness and peace. 

In short the common notion of the existence of an 
independent power of evil, must rest upon one of two 
impossible things : either that the devil was created by a 
perfectly wise and good God, an evil being, for the special 
purpose of opposing his providence, and acting as temp- 
ter and tormentor of his rational creatures ; or that a 
perfectly happy and glorified spirit, rebelled against the 
Divine Majesty ; which is just as impossible as the other. 

The following extract is taken from a sermon preach- 
ed by Thomas Story, the substance of which is recorded 
in his Journal, pp, 747 — 748. 

" And also what the Apostle James hath written to 
this effect, * let not him who is tempted say, he is temp- 
ed of God, for God tempt eth no man, neither is he him- 
self tempted of evil ; but he who is tempted, is led 
aside of his own lusts, and enticed I' 

And as this Apostle maketh no mention of any other 
devil in this text, but our own lusts, let us all be aware 
of them, every one in himself, as not to think, or speak, 
or act according to them and that evil one, who worketh 
in them and by them ; but through the divine eternal 
truth (the Holy Spirit of truth) revealed in us through 
Christ our Lord, in whom we have believed, mortift 






28 

the deeds of the body ; and then shall we conquer afl 
evil, and subdue every temptation towards it m due 
time, and live in and unto him who died for us } and in 
the end of all, see evil no more, nor any devil ; to which 
I fervently exhort this day." 

8. "And has, in this state entertained doubts ef 
many of the important truths declared in the holy 
scriptures ; especially as relates to the fall of man, and ; 
his redemption by Christ." 

It is somewhat difficult to understand the precise 
meaning of this charge- — " has entertained doubts of 
some of the important truths declared in the holy scrip- 
tures" — What important truths I Does he disbelieve 
the scriptures ? No. We shall prove, in the course of 
this investigation, his full belief in the scriptures of 
truth. 

As this is a vague assertion^ unsupported by any evi- 
dence, it is only necessary to meet it with, a positive 
denial. We assert, without fear of refutation, that 
there is not one important truth contained in any part 
of the bible, from the beginning of Genesis, to the end 
of Revelations, of which he entertains a doubt. This 
assertion is made, with a full and deliberate considera- 
tion, and understanding of its extent and bearing* But 
the charge is continued, in terms a little more definite- 
— " especially as relates to the fall of man, and his re- 
demption by Christ." Are we to understand by this 
that he " entertains doubts" whether man ever fell, or 
whether he was any the worse for having fallen ? In 
either case, it is not true r as every body knows, who 
has given impartial attention to his public discourses* 
And with respect to " redemption by Christ" — the fol- 
lowing sentence contains the doctrine of Elias Hicks, 
and of the yearly meeting to which he belongs;— 
and we might add— of the society of Friends at large, 
from its first rise, to the present day. " We can, in 
sincerity adopt the language used by William Penn, viz. 



99 

* ( However positively we may reject or deny our adver- 
saries unscriptural and immaginary satisfaction, let all 
know this, that we pretend not to know any other name 
by which redemption, atonement, and salvation can be 
obtained, but by Jesus Christ the Saviour, who is the 
power and wisdom <oi God." (Yearly Meeting Epistle 
1829.) 

9 "And in consequence, to call in question the divine 
authority of a great portion of the sacred writings, and 
even the authenticity of some parts thereof" 

This charge of denying or cal ling in question the author- 
ity of the scriptures, has been repeated so often, and on so 
many different occasions, by a certain discription of or-' 
thodox professors, that they begin to be almost persuad- 
ed that it is true. But upon a slight examination, the 
futility of the assertion, will be apparent. The whole 
tenor of his discourses proves his belief in the scriptures 
of truth. His arguments are continually enforced and 
illustrated by reference to their authority. And his 
quotations are so frequent, that we have counted more 
than thirty in one sermon. He must be the greatest 
hypocrite in the world, upon the supposition that he 
should illustrate and enforce his arguments, and recite 
at every step of his nrogress, the authority of a book 
in which he does not believe. His sermons, upon such an 
assumption, would he the most idle and ridiculous faice, 
that ever was acted, in the face of a deluded world. 
Can any man, in a state of sanity suppose, that he 
would, at the age of four-score years, his head bleached 
with the frosts of eighty winters, leave the quiet endear- 
ments of domestic life, and travel abroad, and spend 
his remaining strength, to utter, under the guise of so- 
lemn gospel truths, deliberate and wilful falsehoods in 
every sentence ? Yet such must be the fact, if he does 
not believe the scriptures. 

But the candor, and honesty, and sincerity which dis- 
tinguish all his movements, and have characterized all 



m 

his actions through life, forhid such an admission for an 
instant. No man, in his sober senses, can doubt his sin- 
cerity for a moment. His life has been consistent with 
his precepts for more than half a century. "By their 
fruits ye shall know them." 

The charge then, of calling in question the authority 
of the scriptures, under all the circumstances of the case, 
borders so much upon the absurd, that it scarcely de- 
serves a serious refutation. But inasmuch as some have 
been imposed upon, by the frequent repetition of this 
charge, we shall examine it a little more particularly. 

" Calls in question the divine authority of a great 
portion of the sacred writings !" " A great portion," in 
common parlance, means more than half. His own ex- 
press declarations, ought to be admitted as decisive evi- 
dence of his belief in the scriptures of truth. 

The following extracts from his discourses, contain 
the true doctrine of Friends concerning the scriptures. 

" It is my prayer and heart's desire, that you improve 
and try it. Search the scriptures, as we read the Be- 
reans did, and see whether these things are so. But 
you cannot know them by reading them merely : but as 
you are directed by the light of the Divine Spirit. Under 
the influence of that Spirit, you may not only read and 
understand them, but you will be confirmed thereby." 

"This Spirit led the Ancients," (the writers of the 
scriptures) " and it will lead us. Our experience will 
correspond" (with theirs,) " when we come to under- 
stand this. Our doctrines will be alike brought forth 
out of the treasury." — (Philad* sermon, 1825, page 17. J 

" Oh that we might understand the scriptures as we 
read. But we cannot understand them, only as we 
dwell in the light. If we dwell in the light, here it is 
that we can read them as we ought to read them." — 
(Ibid, page 43.^ 

" And there are those who assert that I disbelieve the 



31 

scriptures, and that I undervalue them ! But there is not 
a greater falsehood expressed among mankind ! And I 
will assure you my friends, that what I say is truth. I hare 
loved the scriptures of truth, from my youth ; 1 have 
delighted in reading them : and perhaps there are none 
who have read them more than myself. And I presume 
according to my knowledge, no man has received more 
advantage than I have, and continue to have, from rea- 
ding them. And I am at this time co vinced, that 
wherever I have been called to be mouth for the Lord 
in the line of the gospel ministry, I need not make this 
apology, or declaration. No individual ever brought 
forth more scripture to prove their doctrine, than I have, 
when under the influence of divine love and truth, that 
gave forth the scriptures. Divine wisdom knowing the 
state of the people, that they would hardly receive my 
doctrines, unless confirmed by scripture testimony ; here 
immediately without the necessity of seeking for it, a 
passage would rise up in consonance with my assertion 
or declaration. And I appeal to the people, where my 
lot has been cast, if this has not been my case. Then 
what infatuation to say that I undervalue the scriptures. 
No, my friends, I do not undervalue the scriptures of 
truth : but I feel it a duty to set them in their right 
place — and I dare not set them above it. For if I do 
this, I shall offend my Creator. — I shall offend against 
that light which is my faith, and my governing principle ; 
and in which I feel peace with God, and with the chil- 
dren of men every where." — Darby sermon, Quaker 
vol I. p. 19. 

These extracts ought to be conclusive, and set the 
question forever at rest. But the discourses from which 
they are taken, have been in print for a number of 
years ; and yet we find the charge repeated, in an offi- 
cial capacity, by a little company calling themselves a 
Monthly Meeting. To show that in setting the scrip- 



32 

aires " in their right place," which is in subordination 
to the Spirit, Elias Hicks has the example of primitive 
friends, we shall subjoin a few extracts from their wri- 
tings. 

"The principal rule of Christians under the gospel, is 
not an outward letter, or law outwardly written and de- 
livered, but an inward spiritual law, engraven in the 
heart ; the law of the spirit of life, the word that is nigh, 
in the heart and in the mouth. But the letter of the 
scriptures is outward, of itself a dead thing, a mere de- 
claration of good things, but not the things them- 
selves.' ' — Barclay's Apology, page 88. 

"What kind of knowledge wilt thou gather from the 
scriptures ? Not a knowledge which will humble thee, 
and cleanse thy heart, but a knowledge that will puff 
thee up and fit thee for slaughter." — (Pennington, Vol. 
1. page 141. J 

"The scripture of itself, is a dead letter, for all letters 
are so in themselves, — and indeed no wo ds are living to 
any man, whether written or spoken, but as they are 
made so by the Spirit, in the heart of such a man." — 
Penn's Works, Vol. 4, page 471. 

" It is the Spirit of God that gave forth the scriptures, 
which Spirit was and is with us, in the saints, that lead- 
eth into all truth, and teacheth to know all things ; and 
that Spirit of God only is the standing rule to walk in, 
and to walk by ; it was the rule to Abel, Enoch, and 
Abraham, and the rest of the holy Fathers, that lived 
before any scripture was written. And it was the rule 
to the prophets, to Christ, and to the holy Apostles ; 
they all followed the Spirit, and walked in it ; and spoke, 
and wrought, and acted, as the Spirit of God within 
them, moved them, and led them. It was not the scrip- 
tures, but the Spirit that gave forth the scriptures, that 
was the standing, unchangeable, unerring rule of wor- 
shipping, serving, and obeying the Lord God ; and the 
same spirit is the standing rule to us also." 

(Edward Burrough, page 484. J 



33 

11 The spirit of God is the Saints' rule, and that is 
greater than the scriptures, and the rule of the Spirit of 
God is above the scriptures." — (Richard Hubberthorn, 
W. page U2.) 

" This I witness to all the sons of men, that the 
knowledge of Eternal Life, I came not to by th« letter 
of the scripture, nor hearing men speak of the name of 
God." — TVm. Dewsbury, page 54. 

" The scriptures cannot give a knowledge of the Sa- 
viour." — G. Fox's " Great Mystery," p. 140. 

" There is none knows Christ nor his sufferings, but 
by the Spirit of God within:'— Ibid, p. 142. 

" The Spirit of God and the life, are not in the scrip- 
tures, but was in them that gave them forth." — Ibid, 
p. 224. 

Ought not these friends to be anathematized for un- 
dervaluing the scriptures, and " calling in question 
their authority?" 

They certainly as richly merit the opprobrious 
epithet of heretics, as Elias Hicks ; for they view 
them exactly in the same light. If the accusers of 
Elias Hicks condemn him for placing these writings in 
their right place, how shall the former escape the same 
condemnation? Their strictures upon him, and their 
grounds of accusation against him* if they prove any 
thing, prove too much. They show that these orthodox 
censors of this modern Quaker of the old school, have 
departed from the faith of our predecessors. In con- 
demning him, they virtually, and in effect condemn them. 
They must stand or fall together. 

" To call in question the divine authority of a great 
portion of the sacred writings!" On the afternoon of 
the 17th day of the 5th month, in the present year, at 
Hester street meeting-house, in the city of New York, 
Elias Hicks made this declaration to a very large audi- 
ence, when speaking of the law given to the Israelites 
through the ministry of Moses ; — " He (Moses) wrote, 

5 



u 

nor commanded nothing, but what he received from she 
immediate manifestation, or revelation of the Spirit of 
God to him." The words were particularly noticed at 
the time, and written down immediately, and were ex- 
pressed verbatum as quoted above. Yet the writings of 
Moses are a part, the authenticity, and divine autho- 
rity of which he is charged with doubting ; " especially 
that part as relates to the fall of man." 

10. " He has extensively promulgated his views in 
conversation, in writing, and in his public communica- 
tions; endeavoring to destroy a belief in the miraculous 
conception of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." 

This charge of endeavoring to destroy a belief in 
the miraculous conception, is one that admits of an easy 
refutation. The facts which disprove the charge, have 
been before the public for a sufficient length of time to 
be generally known. And we cannot suppose that 
those who now repeat it, could have been ignorant of 
them* We admit the possibility of a man's language 
being misconstrued unintentionally, especially if there 
be any apparent ambiguity in the expressions used. 
But when an explanation is asked, and explicitly given, 
that explanation ought, in common justice, to be re- 
ceived as conclusive evidence, of the meaning intended 
to be conveyed, as well as what was not intended* 
The evidence adduced in support of this charge, are 
two extracts, one from a sermon delivered by Elias 
Hicks in Philadelphia, and another from a letter writ- 
ten by him to Thomas Willis of Jericho, L. I. We 
shall, in the first place, examine these extracts, to show,, 
that by no rule of fair and liberal criticism, can they be 
made to convey any such meaning as has been attributed 
to them. And then exhibit Elias Hicks' plain and ex- 
press testimony to his belief in the miraculous con- 
ception. 

These extracts have not only been unfairly taken, as 
*re expect to prove, but construed in opposition to ex- 



So 

press testimony contained in the same paragraph with 
one of them. They have been paraded before the 
world in the form of " Epistles," " Testimonies," and 
u Declaiations," within the last two years, with all the 
solemn accuracy of evangelical truth ; to prove " beyond 
the reach of contradiction," that Elias Hicks denies 
that which he himself declares he always believed. 

And the clergymen of the different denominations 
and professions in the United Srates, have been kindly 
and gratuitously furnished with these printed " Epis- 
tles," and " Declarations," that they might be duly in- 
formed of the incorrigible heresy of Elias Hicks. 

The first extract alluded to, is from a sermon de- 
livered in Philadelphia, on the 14th day of the 11th 
month, 1824, and is in these words. — 

" Who was his father ? He was begotten of God. 
We cannot suppose that it was the outward body of 
flesh and blood that was begotten of God ; but, a birth 
of the spiritual life. For nothing can be a son of God, 
but that which is a spirit; and, nothing but the soul of 
man is a recipient for the light and Spirit of God. 
Therefore, nothing can be a son of God. but that which 
is immortal and invisible. Nothing visible can be a 
son of God. Every visible thing must come to an end, 
and we must know the mortality of it. * Flesh and 
blood cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven.' By 
the analogy of reason, spirit cannot beget a material 
body; because, the thing begotten must be of the same 
nature with its father. Spirit cannot beget any thing 
but spirit; it cannot beget flesh and blood. No, my 
friends, it is impossible." (Sermon, p. 10.J 

We are willing to take this extract as it stands, upon 
its own merits, unconnected as it is with the context. 
It is evident from an impartial examination of the mode 
of reasoning pursued in it, that it was the design of the 
speaker to point out to his audience, the natural dis- 
tinction that exiftfl between flesh and spirit, body and 



36 

soul ; between that which is mortal, and thf which is 
divine. And it no more implies a denial of the miracle 
of the birth of Christ, than it does of the creation of 
Adam. For though the divine Spiiit may create matter, 
it is contrary to its nature to beget a material body ; 
and, therefore, impossible. For it is impossible, even 
for Omnipotence, to do any thing contrary to his own na- 
ture. 

In a sermon delivered by Elias Hicks, on the second 
day of the 12th month, 1824, this language is used, 
" Here we learn what was man's duty in the beginning. 
Here we learn how he might obtain the end of his cre- 
ation, without transgression. We have it in the exam- 
ple of the child Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary, and 
clothed with a body of flesh and blood, and like us en- 
dued with an immortal spirit. For nothing can be a 
son or child of God, but a rational, immortal spirit." 
(p. 69.) Again, in the same sermon (p. 70,) speaking 
still of the person of Jesus Christ, he says, " The first 
birth," (meaning the birth of the body,) " was a created 
birth." Here is an illustration of his true meaning, 
where, he says, in the extract objected to, that " we are 
not to suppose it was the outward body that was begot- 
ten of God, but a birth of the spiritual life." And it does 
not invalidate in the least, the miracle of the birth of 
Christ. Nay, such a supposition is clearly refuted by 
these last quotations. They affirm in plain and express 
terms, first, that the child Jesus was born of the Virgin 
Mary ; and if so, miraculously conceived ; and secondly, 
that this birth of the Virgin was a " created birth" not 
begotten. — An act of creation, not of generation. 
Which is in exact accordance with the supposed object- 
tionable extract. In that extract Elias Hicks answers 
the question, who was his father, in these words : — "He 
was begotten of God." Consequently the son of God. 
He then proceeds to prove, in a manner perfectly ra- 
tional and philosophical, that it was not the outward 



37 

body that was begotten of God, but a birth of the spir- 
itual life. And why ? Because nothing can be a son 
of God, but that which is immortal and invisible. 

Moses, speaking in the name of Jehovah says, " for 
there shall no man see me and live." — (E'xodus 33. 20) 
And the apostle declares that, " no man hath seen God 
at any time." — (John 1. \S.) Then that which in its 
nature is divine, must be, not only immortal, but invisible 
to the outward senses, which none can reasonably deny. 
But the outward body of flesh, was visible to mortal 
eyes; was subject to death; and therefore, in its nature 
not immortal; otherwise, the Jews could not have taken 
the life of it. For that which is immortal and divine 
can never die, as the common acceptation of the terms 
clearly prove. But that which is begotten of God must 
be of the same nature with its Father, therefore, im- 
mortal and divine, 

In the third chapter of John, we find a language 
which was addressed to Nicodemus, of precisely the 
same signification with that quoted from Elias Hicks. 
" That which is born of the flesh, is flesh, and that which 
is born of the Spirit, is spirit." Can these expressions 
possibly be construed to mean any thing else, than that 
every birth begotten by the Spirit, must be a spiritual 
birth. For Jesus Christ was speaking of the new birth, 
which is no other than a spiritual birth, begotten by 
the Spirit of God in the soul; without experiencing which, 
no man can see the kingdom of heaven. And Nicode- 
mus, though a master in Israel, was so outward in his 
views, that he seemed to understand the doctrine no 
better, than some of our high professors do the same 
kind of truths now. 

"It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth 

nothing" (John 6 63.) 

The outward body born ©f a Virgin was flesh. Can 
that be properly called the Son of God, which profiteth 
nothing ? 



38 

" For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they 
are the sons of God." (Rom. 8. — 14.) It is the sml that 
is to be led by the Spirit of God, not the outward body. 
For there, in the soul, and no where else,the Sonship is 
known. "For the soul only is a recipient of the light 
a«d Spirit of God." (Hicks.) " Now this I *ay brethren, 
that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." 
(1 Cor. 15. — 50) The outward body was fl. sh and 
blood. Cannot the Sm of God inherit the k ngdom of 
God? If this query is answered in the affirmative, it 
follows that the outward body is not the Son ol God,in 
the sense in which Christ is so called in the scriptures. 
Therefore the expressions used by Eiias Hicks are con- 
firmed and established by the testimony of Jesus Christ, 
and the Apostles ; and do not invalidate the miracle of 
Christ's birth. 

It will now be proper to show that the extract we 
have been considering does not inculcate any new and 
strange opinions, unknown to the society of Friends, 
or discordant with their approved doctrines. The argu- 
ment, and the language are his own, and are original with 
him ; but arguments and opinions, amounting in effect 
to the same thing, and against which the same objec- 
tions lie, with equal, if not greater force, are found in 
the works of primitive friends, as will appear from the 
following extracts. 

Wni. Penn says, in reply to Reeve and Muggleton ; 
4£ Such as i she begetter, such must the begotten be." 
" The thing begotten must be of the same nature with its 
father. "(Hicks.) And both these declarations are made 
in relation to the same thing, and have the same mean- 
ing. " We see men beget men," (continues YVm. Penn) 
"horses, horses; fish, fish; and every seed has its own 
body : then by good consequence, the immortal God 
must have begotten h.mself an immortal God, one that 
could not die by the hand, or cruelty of his own crea- 
tures. In short, it is as impossible for God, as God, *•• 



39 

become a dying man, "(that is subject to death) " as tor 
a dying man to be changed into an immortal God. They 
are reciprocally impossible and blasphemous." Is not 
this saying in effect, that the outward body which was 
subject to death was not begotten of liod, or the Son of 
God? For "such as is the begetter, such must the be- 
gotten be." But he speaks still more to the point in 
these words : " That the outward person, vv'iich suffer- 
ed, was properly the Son of God, we utterly deny." 
(Penn's Works, folio, vol. 2. p. 121.) And Daniel 
Phillips, a friend of London, in a work called Vindicise 
Veritatis, page 90th, vindicating Wm. Penn's remarks 
above quoted, uses this argument — " He is properly the 
Son of G d,that hath the essential properties of God, 
Eternity, Immortality, Infinity, Immensity, Ubiquity, &c. 
But the outward person or body of Christ, hath not the 
essential properties of God, Eieinity, Immensity r &c. 
Therefore the outward person or body of Christ is not 
properly the Son of God. 

He is properly the Son of .God, that is in every res- 
pect one with the Father. » 

But the outward person that suffered, is not in every 
respect one with the Father. 

Therefore &c. as above. 

He is properly the Son of God that is of the same 
substance with the Father. 

But the outward person that suffered death is not of 
the same substance with the Father. 

Therefore the outward person, or man, is not pro- 
perly the Son of God." 

All which corroborates and confirms, in the clearest 
manner, the doctrine of Elias Hicks, contained in the 
extract objected to, " that it was not the outward body 
of flesh and blood, that was begotten of God ; but, that 
it must be taken internally and spirituall)." Yi t, we 
do not find that these friends were ever denounced as 
heretics, by their brethren in profession, or charged 



40 

with denying the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ^ 
" Now they," (Friends) " distinguish according to 
the scriptures, between that which is called Christ, and 
the bodily garment which he took. The one was 
flesh, the other spirit. 'The flesh profiteth nothing 
(saith he,) the Spirit quickeneth ; and he that eateth 
me, shall live by me, even as I live by the Father, (John 
6. 57, 63.) This is the manna itself, the true treasure ; 
the other but the visible or earthen vessel which held 
it. The body of flesh was but the veil ( Heb. 10. 20J 
the eternal life Was the substance veiled* The one he 
did partake of, as the rest of the children did ; the other 
was he which did partake thereof. (Heb. 2. 14.^ The 
one was the body which was prepared for the life, for it 
to appear in, and be made manifest. The other was the 
life, or light itself, for which the body was prepared, 
who took it up, and appeared in it, to do the will (Psalms 
40. 7, 8 .) and was made manifest to those eyes which 
were able to see through the veil wherewith it was co- 
vered." (John 1. 14.,) — Pennington's work Vol. l,p. 360. 
In the above extract, tlfe same marked distinction is 
drawn by Pennington for himself and Friends, as is made 
by Elias Hicks, between the life, which is the "' begotten 
of God" and the garment, or outward body of flesh, in 
which it appeared. The one is a birth of the spiritual 
life; the other the veil in which the life was manifested. 
The one he partook of in common with the other child- 
ren of Abraham ; the other was the substance veiled. 
The one begotten of God ; the other born of a woman. 
" We witness the same Christ which ever was, now 
manifested in the flesh, and is appeared in the likeness 
of sinful flesh, to condemn sin in the flesh ; which be- 
came," (or took) " flesh and dwelt amongst the Apos- 
tles. This Christ we witness no more after the flesh, but 
ofter the Spirit ; and before we knew him after the 
Spirit, we had no profit by him, but were in a state of 
reprobatiou ; and so are all now who profess him in 



41 

Words, but know nothing of him but by the letter with- 
out them." — ParneVs writings, p. 104. 

These extracts are deemed quite sufficient to prove, 
that it is no new doctrine which is now objected to in 
Elias Hicks ; but, the pure primitive Quaker doctrine 
revived. Truly, the time has come, when "they will 
not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts, 
shall heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: 
and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and 
shall be turned unto fables." (2 Tim. 4. 3, 4J 

The next extract, which we shall now consider, is 
from a letter to Thomas Willis, written in 1821. 

" Now, in his creed" (the Bishop of Rome) " to which 
he made all the nations of Europe bow, by dint of the 
sword, was this of the miraculous birth; therefore, 
all children for several hundred years, were brought up 
and educated in this belief, without any examination 
with regard to its correctness. Finding this to be the 
case, I examined the accounts given by the four Evan- 
gelists, and according to my best judgement on the oc- 
casion, I was led to think there was considerably more 
scripture evidence for his being the son of Joseph, than 
otherwise ; [although it has not yet changed my belief, 
are the consequences which follow much more favorable. 
For as the Israelitish covenant, rested very much upon 
external evidence, by way of outward miracle, so I con- 
clude this miraculous birth was principally to induce the 
Israelites to believe he was their promised Messiah, 
or the Prophet Moses had long before prophesied of, 
should come, like unto himself."] The lines enclosed 
in brackets, formed no part of the extract made by the 
compilers of the " Epistles," " Testimonies" and " De- 
clarations," with which the country has been inundated, 
though they stand in immediate connexion in the letter. 

Their reason for stopping short is best known to 
themselves. Their avowed object was, to convict Elias 
Hicks of denying the miraculous conception of Jesus. 

6 



42 

The part of the letter now added, contains a declaration, 
that he had not changed his belief, which he says near 
the beginning of the same letter, he had held for more 
than fifty years. The letter itself refutes the charge, 
which the extract from it was intended to establish. 
The declaration is twice made, that he had not changed 
his belief. And, he gives what he concludes to be a 
reason for this deviation from the laws of nature. — to 
induce the Israelites to believe that Jesus of Nazareth 
was their promised Messiah. And this kind of evidence, 
the evidence of outward miracles, was suited to the 
state and condition of the Jewish nation ; their outward 
law or covenant resting very much upon it. These 
reasons would be foolish and absurd, upon the supposi- 
tion that he denied the miracle, upon his belief in which 
they are evidently founded. He assumes the miracul- 
ous birth as a fact admitted, and gives what he con- 
cludes to be the object to be attained by this departure 
from established laws. 

From what has been already shown, the fact is clearly 
established, that this letter to Thomas Willis, has been 
mutilated, and the extract from it unfairly taken, to 
make out a charge, which the letter itself refutes. 

We shall now quote Elias Hicks' opinion and belief 
on this subject, in his own words. And first, from a let- 
ter to a friend, dated Jericho 7th mo. 22nd, 1827. 
" The next query respecting the miraculous conception, 
&c. is to me a very plain and simple thing. All the ex- 
ternal miracles of the Jewish covenant, had but one 
aim and end ; and the miraculous conception of Jesus, 
and of Isaac, and John the Baptist, were among the 
greatest. All of which were intended to prove to that 
dark and ignorant people, debased by their bondage, 
that there was a living and invisible God. For such was 
thtir degraded state, that no other means seemed cal- 
culated to awaken them, and raise in them a belief in 
that invisible power, that made and governed the world. 






43 

but an external manifestation through the medium of 
outward miracles. And as Moses and the prophets 
had foretold of the coming of their last great prophet, 
it was of singular importance to that people, that they 
should know and believe in him when he came ; and as, 
they depended on outward miracles as the highest evi- 
dence under that dispensation, so, it is not only reason- 
able, but even natural to suppose, that he would be 
ushered in by some miraculous display of divine power." 

From another letter to a friend in reply to inquiries 
respecting his belief on this subject, dated 12th month 
13th, 1827. " I never thought nor said that I disbelieved 
the account given by the Evangelists, respecting the 
miraculous conception of Jesus Christ : and thou mayest 
be fully assured, that whoever has reported it, has re- 
ported an absolute falsehood." There are other letters 
from Elias Hicks, not published, but which we have 
seen, to persons who had made similar inquiries, con- 
taining similar declarations to those just quoted.* 
Besides, in his public discourses, there are frequent 
allusions to " the son of the Virgin," fully evincing his 
belief in the miracle of his birth. But what has been 
already adduced, is deemed sufficient to satisfy every 
candid inquirer, that the charge is not true. We do not 
expect to convince those, if any such there be, who are 
determined to criminate him at all hazards, regardless 
of the means. Such would not be convinced, though one 
should rise from the dead. 

To sum up the whole evidence on this article ; it ap- 
pears, that two short extracts have been made, from 
the sermons and letters of Elias Hicks, from which, by 
the exercise of sufficient ingenuity, a meaning might 



* In a letter to a friend in Philadelphia written in 1825, Elias Hicks 
observes, "Ian astonished how any man of honest intentions dare say, 
that I denied the e; iraculous conception of the child Jesus in the womb of 
the Virgin Mary : for 1 have invariably asserted my belief thereiB, fr«*jn 
my early life to the present d*y." 






44 



be extorted, upon which" to found this charge. That this 
is a forced construction, which the passages themselves 
will not justify, by any rule of candid criticism — That 
one of these extracts stands in immediate connexion, 
with an express avowal of his belief in the miracle, 
which part was omitted in the selection made — That 
the oher when duly examined, is found to be, not only, 
not repugnant to the approved doctrines of Friends, but 
in perfect harmony and agreement with the opinions of 
men of the highest standing, and among the most influ- 
ential in the society, at a very early period, clearly 
expressed in their writings — That in addition to all this 
negative evidence, we have Elias Hicks' decided and 
explicit testimony, several times repeated, of a later 
date than the letter and sermon from which the extracts 
were made, to his full faith and confidence in the ac- 
counts given by the Evangelists, a belief in which he 
has been charged with " endeavouring to destroy." 
Therefore we conclude, the fact is fully established, 
that it is a groundless accusation. 

11 " Undervaluing the miracles wrought by him." 
There is no evidence presents to support this charge, 
from a review of the sermons and letters of Elias Hicks. 
These miracles were adapted to the state of the 
people amongst whom they were performed. For the 
means resorted to, by divine wisdom, are always best 
adapted to the end proposed. There object appears 
to have been two-fold: first, benevolent ; to relieve the 
people of their bodily disease^ and infirmities ; and se- 
condly, as a proof that he was the Messiah promised to 
Israel : and this seems to have been their great and 
leading object. He appeals to them as evidence that 
he was the Christ. " The works that I do in my 
Father's name, they bear witness of me." (John 10. — 
25.) "If I do not the work* of my Father, believe me 
not."(John 10 — 37) They were performed on material 
substances — were addressed to the outward senses; 



45 

and were designed to excite the attention of the be- 
nighted Jews, so as to induce them to give ear to the 
important precepts and doctrine which he taught. 

But is there no evidence of a higher grade than that 
addressed to the external senses, and which is only per- 
ceived by its effects on material substances ? If so, why 
were not all the Jews, who were witnesses of the 
mighty works, wrought by Christ, believers in him ? 
They acknowledged that he did many miracles, yet they 
persecuted him, and put him to death as an impostor, 
and a deceiver. And why were not Pharoah and the 
Egyptians convinced by the miracles, that Moees was 
authorised and empowered to perform in their presence, 
if outward miracles form the highest grade of evidence 
that can be presented to the human understanding f 
The Apostle Peter recognises an evidence of a far su- 
perior character, in his second Epistle, ( chap. 1, v. 19.) 
" We have also a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto 
ye do well to take heed, as unto a light shining in a 
dark place" &c. With what is this " more sure word of 
prophecy" compared ? He liad just been speaking of the 
transfiguration of Christ in the " holy mount," when 
they saw Moses and Elias talking with him ; and " heard 
a voice from heaven" (an outward and audible voice,) 
" saying, this is my beloved son, in whom I am well 
pleased." Can we imagine any kind of external evi- 
dence superior to this ? But the word of prophecy, unto 
which he recommends them to take heed, is " more 
sure," less liable to- deception or mis-apprehension. 
There is an infallible certainty in the one, which there is 
not in the other. 

We are well aware, that this passage has been un- 
derstood by many to refer to the scriptures of the Old 
Testament. But such an explanation of the text, de- 
stroys the consistency of the Apostles argument. He 
guards against such a construction, as if sensible of the 
outward views which might be taken of his language. 



46 

" Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scriptures 
is of any private interpretation" — not to be rightly un- 
derstood, or practically applied in any man's experi- 
ence, except through the aid and influence of this 
"more sure word," under the guidance of which they 
were written. " For prophecy came not in old time, by 
the will of man ; but holy men of old spake as they 
were moved of the Holy Ghost." — by giving heed to 
this light of God's spirit shining in a dark place. Be- 
sides, can we suppose, that any language spoken or 
written by the prophets, could be " more sure" and 
certain, to Peter, James, and John, than the vision 
which their eyes had seen, and the voice from heaven, 
which their ears had heard, in the mount ? Not even 
the account given by Moses, of the voice that spake on 
Mount Sinai, could be equally " sure" to them; because 
they heard and saw the one themselves, and the other 
they only read of, in the books of Moses. It is then the 
Spirit of God speaking, or shining immediately in the 
soul, that is the " more sure word of prophecy," unto 
which the Apostle says " ye do well to take heed." 
From which it appears, as well as from numerous other 
passages, which might be adduced, that there is an evi- 
dence presented to the faithful servants of God, of a 
character far superior to that of outward miracles. 
And can any man be said to undervalue the miracles of 
Jesus Christ, who places them in their proper order in 
the scale of evidence — Who " takes things rationally" 
according to the purposes of divine wisdom t 

12. " And asserting that he was but a man, as liable 
to fall into sin, and lose his condition, as the rest of 
mankind — that he was on a level, and in a state of 
equality with them ; an Israelite, indued with a mea- 
sure of divine grace, in common with the children of 
Abraham." 

We are not informed, in the document we are review- 
ing, at what time, or under what circumstances the 



47 

assertions and declarations here recited, were presumed 
to be made by Elias Hicks. But we have a clue to 
guide us in our inquiries on this subject, in the 
u Epistle and Testimony" issued by the party of ortho- 
dox Friends, (so called) who seceded from the yearly 
meeting of New- York, in 1828. We shall insert some 
of the extracts from the sermons of Elias Hicks, con- 
tained in that " Epistle," and then quote the paragraph 
from which they are taken, that the reader may judge 
of the scope and design of the speaker's argument ; 
after which we shall examine the doctrine inculcated in 

them. 

" And what encouragement, my friends, we receive 
through this medium, when we are brought by the light 
into a feeling of unity with our great pattern, Jesus 
Christ, and with God our Creator ! Oh see how we 
come up into an equality with him" (Quak. vol. 1. 
page 13. )" And we derive a portion of the same" (spirit) 
" which is able to save the soul, if properly obeyed. 
Here now he was put upon a level." (Ibid, page 17) "If 
any man have not the spirit of Christ he is none of his," 
saith the Apostle. (Rom. 8. — 9.) 

" Here we find that the Son of God saw no alterna- 
tive ; for if he gave up his testimony in order to save 
his natural life, he could not be saved with God's sal- 
vation ; hence he surrendered to the divine will, rather 
than to lose his standing and favor with his Almighty 
Father: and what a blessed example it was." (Ibid, 
page 16.) 

" He was tempted in all points as we are. Now how 
could he be tempted, if he had been fixed in a state of 
perfection in which he could not turn aside. Can you 
suppose as rational beings, that such a being could be 
tempted ? No — not any more than God Almighty could 
be tempted. Perfection is perfection, and cannot be 
tempted. It is impossible." (Ibid, page 253.) These are 
all the extracts made by the compilers of the " Epis- 



48 

tie'* &c. which come within the perview of the article 
we are now considering. We shall now quote that part 
of the sermons from which two of them are taken, and 
in which they are included ; and I hen proceed to the 
consideration of the doctrine in question. 

" Some will set up a particular system, and tell much 
about old things, the prophets under the law, and about 
Jesus Christ, in that outward body, asserting that his 
death made atonement for our sins ; because his righ- 
teousness so offended the Jews, that the wicked priests 
and pharasees slew him. But by this he was made a per- 
fect example to us, to show to us that for the testimony 
of God our Creator, we must be willing, as Jesus was, 
to surrender up every thing unto God ; and to do his 
will in every thing, even if it cost us our natural lives. 
For if we are brought into the situation that he was in, 
that we cannot save our natural lives without giving up 
the testimony that God has called us to bear, we have 
his example not to do it, though we may feel as he did, 
that it is a great trial. 

Yet it is not a sin to act as he did, to plead with the 
Father, that if it be possible, he will let this cup pass 
from us. The Lord Almighty will accept us in it, and 
he does not consider it a breach of duty. Here we find 
that the Son of God saw no alternative ; for if he gave up 
his testimony in order to save his natural life, he could not 
he saved with God's salvation; hence he surrendered to 
the divine will, rather than lose his standing and favor 
with his Almighty Father : — And what a blessed example 
it was. Here now what a life of righteousness ! The 
Apostle says, that he is our example, that we should 
follow his steps.* But, if he had any more power than 
we have, how could he be an example to us? He had 



* The passage alluded to here, but not literally quoted, is in I. Peter 
Chap. 2. v. 21. " Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example that ye 
should follow his steps:" which is very applicable to the speaker's argu- 
ment 



49 

no more power than would enable him to do the will ol 
God ; and he had it in its fulness: and of this every ra- 
tional man has his proportion. He had more, because 
he had a much greater work to perform ; as he who hath 
live talents, must be faithful according to the knowledge 
received ; and so must they who have but the one talent, 
and then we shall be accepted by the beloved of our 
souls. And what astonishing ignorance it must be to 
suppose, that material blood, made of the dust of the 
earth, can be considered a satisfactory offering for a 
spiritual being, that is all spirit and no flesh ! I say, 
what astonishing ignorance ! And yet what a display 
of goodness and mercy, to take the example before us, 
as the one we must follow, if we would be the children 
of God. Here he is exalted in his proper station, as a 
minister, a* an outward Saviour to the Israelites, by the 
power which he exercised in outward miracles. And 
the Spirit by which he was actuated, is that light and 
life which is the Saviour of the soul : and it was the 
same light and life, which is the light and life of 
God ; for he derived it from God his Heavenly Fa- 
ther. And we derive a portion of the same, which is 
able to save the soul, if properly obeyed. Here now, he 
was put upon a level ; and for this reason, Jesus called 
the children of God, his brethren, " saying, I will declare 
thy name unto my brethren ; in the midst of the Church 
will I sing praises unto thee." (Pis. 22. 22. Heb. 2. 12.) 
He thus united with the Church, and with his brethren in 
singing praises to God Almighty ; for he was not ashamed 
to call them brethren ; and so, when we come under 
the influence of this divine light and life, we shall feel 
him to be our elder brother — to stand before us — to sit 
first, at the right hand, as it were, like the eldest son 
in a family, who had always been faithful to the fat her : 
and his discipline." (pp. 16, 17.) 

The doctrine inculcated in the extracts made by the 
compilers of the " Epistle," which is in perfect agree- 

7 



50 



ment with that of the New Testament, and of the Society 
of Friends, maybe comprised under the following heads. 

1st, that Jesus Christ was subject to the Father in all 
things, and received his power to perform miracles, 
and to do the work assigned him, from God. 

2nd. That as a servant and messenger of God, he 
could not have pleased his Heavenly Father, and been 
preserred in the hour of temptation and trial, if he had 
not resigned his own will to His direction and disposal. 

3rd. That he was a perfect example and pattern for 
as in all things. And — 

4th. That in these respects he was on a level with 
his brethren. 

All these positions are clearly established by unques- 
tionable scripture testimony; which we shall proceed to 
examine. The following passages prove the first posi- 
tion. " But I have greater witness than that of John, 
for the works which the Father hath given me to finish., 
the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the 
Father hath sent me" (John 5. 36.) " The Son can 
do nothing of himself but what he seeth the Father do." 
(Ibid. 5. 19, J " I can of mine ownseJf do nothing; as 
I hear> I judge ; and my judgment is just; because I 
seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father that 
hath sent me." (Ibid. 5. 30. ) " I must work the works 
of him that sent me while it is day ; the night cometh 
when no man can work." ([bid. 9. 4. ) " The works that 
I do in my Father's name" (or power) "they bear witness 
of me." (Ibid. 10. 25.J " Jesus answered, many 
good works have I showed you, from my Father, for which 
of these works do ye stone me." (v. 32.) " If I do not 
the works of my Father, believe me not." (v. 37.) 
" The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of my- 
self; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the 
work." (Ibid. 14. 10.) " I have glorified thee on the 
earth, I have finished the work which thou gavest me to 
ifo." (IbiU. 17, 4.) " But, of that day and that hour 



\ 



knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in hea- 
ven, neither the Son, but the Father." (Mark 13. 32.) 

These testimonies are clear and decisive. Their 
force cannot be weakened by sophistry, nor their au- 
thority denied by any, who profess Christianity. They 
are all the declarations of Jesus Christ concerning him- 
self. A tew quotations from the Apostles will shew that 
they believed his testimony, and understood his charac- 
ter as he had taught them ; as a servant or mesenger 
of God, deriving all his power from his Heavenly 
Father. 

" Ye men of Israel, hear these words ; Jesus of Naz- 
areth, a man approved of God among you by miracles, 
and wonders, and signs, which God did by him in the 
midst of you, as ye yourselves also know." (Peter, in 
Acts 2.-22.) 

" How God annointed Jesus of Nazareth .with the 
Holy Ghost, and with power; who went about doing 
good, and healing all % that were oppressed of the 
devil ; for God was with him " (Peter, Acts ] 0. — 38.) 
This is the same Apostle who said by the revelation of 
the Father, " Thou art the Christ" (the annointed) "the 
Son of the living God." Peter therefore fully understood* 
the true divinity of Christ, and in what it consisted. 

" Wherefore holy brethren partakers of the heavenly 
calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our 
profession, Christ Jesus, who was faithful to him that 
appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his 
house." (Paul, Heb. 3, 1—2.) 

The second position is proved from the following 
passages. " And he went a little further, and fell on 
his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be 
possible, let this cup pass from me : nevertheless, not as 
1 will but, as thou wilt" (Matt. 26. — 39.) Here was 
evidently a struggle — a deep baptism — and something 
in him which shrank from the trial, which he foresaw 
awaited him ; and even a desire, if it were possible, 
consistently with his Heavenly Father's will, that it 



52 

inight pass from him. But the second petition is more 
remarkable (verse 42.) "He went away again the 
second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this 
cup may not pass away from me except I drink it, thy will 
be done. 11 In this we perceive a state of perfect resigna- 
tion to the will of his Father :< — a complete acquiescence 
in the dispensation that awaited him. " Here we find 
the Son of God saw no alternative." 

But there could have been no struggle — no trial — no 
baptism— no probation, nor any merit in his obedience 
and resignation to the will of God, if it had been im- 
possible for him to resist or disobey that will, and thus 
" lose his standing and favor with his Almighty Father." 

The prayer itself would be rendered, upon such a 
supposition, a scene of solemn mockery. 

" Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered 
up prayers, and supplications, with strong crying and 
tears, unto him that was able to save him from death ; 
and was heard in that he feared. Though he were 
a son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he 
suffered. And being made perfect, he became the au- 
thor of eternal salvation, unto all them that obey him ; 
called of God, an high priest after the order of Melchi- 
sedec." (Heb. 5.-7, 8, 9, 10.) Why did he " offer up 
prayers, and supplications, with strong crying and tears, 
unto him that was able to save him from death," if he 
stood in no need of being thus saved ? How could he 
learn obedicnce,by the things which he suffered, if it had 
been impossible for him to disobey f Or how could he 
be "made perfect" if he had been originally placed in 
a state of absolute perfection, " in which he could not 
turn aside ?" Was he absolutely perfect, before he was 
made so ? And how made so, but by obedience through 
sufferings? " As reasonable beings let us take things 
rationally." Christianity was designed for " reasonable 
being :" and its precepts and doctrines, were intended, 
through the shining of the light of the sun of righteous- 
ness in the soul, to be understood " rationally." 



j3 

The third position will scarcely be doubted by any. 

That Jesus in his outward appearance, in his pa- 
tience, in his resignation to the will of his Heavenly 
Father — in his meekness, and in his labors of love for 
the good of mankind, was a perfect pattern and example 
to us and to all mankind, is proved from the general tenor 
of Evangelical history, and the concurrent testimony 
of the Apostles : see the following texts. John, 13. — 15. 
Rom. 15.— 5. I.Peter 2. 21. Mark, 8.-34. Luke, 9. 23. 

The fourth and last position, follows as a consequence 
of the two first, which are proved from scripture. We have 
his own direct testimony in point." For whosoever shall 
do the wiH of my Father which is in Heaven, the same 
is my brother, and sister and mother." (Matt. 12. — 50. 
Mark, 3.-35.) Those who do the will of God, stand in 
the same spiritual relation to Jesus Christ the Son of 
God, as do the children of the same family, in natural 
consanguinity to each other ; which is a relationship 
based upo.i perfect equality in nature. " Inasmuch as 
ye have done it unto one of fhe least of these my brethren, 
ye have done it unto me." (Matt. 25. — 40.) " Go tell 
my brethren, that they go into Galilee, and there shall 
they see me." (Matt. 28. — 10.) In these passages, and 
many others that might be adduced, Jesus acknow- 
ledges a perfect equality of spiritual relationship which 
exists between him and ail those who do the will of 
God. " For as many as are led by the spirit of God, 
they are the sons of God." (Rom. 8. — 14.) " And if 
children then heirs ; heirs of God, and joint heirs with 
Christ." (verse 17.) The same Apostle says, that " in 
#11 things it behoved him to be made like unto his bre- 
thren." (Heb. 2. — 17.) If in all things, he was made 
like unto his brethren, the possibility of there being any 
difference, is absolutely precluded, " sin only excepted." 
If then Jesus Christ received all his power and autho- 
rity from the Father ; which is proved by his uniform 
testimony concerning himself, and confirmed by the 



54 

Apostles. If his being anointed, by his God, with the 
oil of gladness above his fellows, was the consequence 
of his loving righteousness, and hating iniquity, (Psal. 
45. — 7. Heb. 1. — 9.) If he was bound by the same obli- 
gation, to resign his own will to the will of God, that we 
are — and if in all things, it behoved him to be made 
like unto his brethren — then in all these respects he 
was on a level or equality with us. But the premises 
are established by competent scripture testimony, the 
conclusion is unavoidable. 

" An Israelite, indeed with a measure of divine 
grace." Was he not called in scripture the son of David 
according to the flesh ? And if a son of David, an 
Israelite. "A measure of divine grace!" No such 
expressions are found in his discourses. His words are, 
" he had no more power than would enable him to do 
the will of God ; and he had it in its fulness ; and of 
this every rational man has his proportion. He had 
more because he had a much greater work to per- 
form &x." And why ? Because if he had more power 
than was sufficient to qualify him to do the work that 
the Father had given him to finish, he could not be any 
example to us. Besides it is utterly inconsistent with 
the attributes of infinite Wisdom, to suppose, he would 
use means, in any case, more than adequate to the end 
proposed. 

We shall close this article with a few extracts, from 
the writings of primitive friends, in corroboration of 
what has been already adduced. 

" And when the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, 
moving him to preach the gospel, he preached the 
gospel in the spirit and power of the Father, and went 
about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed 
of the devil, as the Father's spirit led and guided him; 
for he did nothing of himself; but all in the will and 
time of the Father." — Pennington vol. 4. y. 99. 

" What is attributed to that body, we acknowledge 



and give to that body in its place, according as the 
scripture attributeth it, which is through and beeausc of 
that which dwelt and acted in it. But, that which 
sanctified and kept the body pure, and made all accept- 
able in him, was the life, holiness, and righteousness of 
the spirit. And, the same thing that kept his vessel 
pure, it is the same thing that cleanseth us. The value 
which the natural flesh and blood had, was from that ; 
in its coming from that, its acting in that, in its suffer- 
ing through that ; yea, indeed, that hath the virtue."-* 
Pennington vol. 3. p. 34. 

" There is no serving God aright, or performing any 
duty or ordinance of worship towards him aright, but in 
a measure of the same life and spirit wherewith Christ 
served him." — T. Zachary, p. 189. 

"And we are taught, led and guided by, and are pos- 
sessors of a measure of the same spirit of Grace and 
Truth that was in that person, Christ, our elder brother, 
that suffered patiently, the contradictions and false ac- 
cusations of sinners, as a Lamb, without the gates of 
Jerusalem, of whose resurrection and life, we are eye 
witnesses." — W. Bayly , p. 169. , 

13. " And, that the principal end of his coming was 
limited to + he Jews." 

This charge may be understood either in regard to 
his office, or his mission. If it is intended to be applied 
to his office, as the minister of peace and reconciliation 
to a degenerate and rebellious world, it is totally ground- 
less : as this is admitted to be as unbounded as the earth 
we inhabit, and as extensive as the duration of time. 
But, if applied to his mission, it is proved both by his 
testimony and his practice. " T am not sent," said he, 
" but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matt. 
15. 24.) And, this declaration is confirmed by the fact, 
that he never exceeded the limits of the Jewish ?tate, in 
the course of his ministry, except in one instance, when 
he visited a city of Samaria, called by the Jews, 



in derision Sichar ; the ancient Shechem of the Israel- 
ites, which belonged originally to the tribe of Ephrairm 
and was situated near Samaria, in the valley between 
mount Gerizim and mount Ebal. The Samaritans 
were a mongrel race, descended from the Assyrians, 
whom Essorhaddon placed there, when he carried the 
ten tribes captive, mixed with the remains of the people 
of Israel who continued in the land. They had the 
books of the law, and professed to worship the God of 
Israel. Hence they were in part, a remnant of " the 
lost sheep of the house of Israel." The opinion here 
objected to is no more than the declaration of a histo- 
rical fact, which none who have examined the subject 
can deny. 

" The coming of Christ in that blessed manifestation, 
(his. appearance in the flesh) was to the Jews only ; he 
says it himself. ' He was not sent but to the lost sheep 
of the house of Israel.' Again. s He came to his own, 
and his own received hirn not." — W. Perm's works, voL 
5.p. 385. 

" The prophecies concerning the advent of the Mes- 
siah, were fulfilled to the Jews, to whom alone he was 
sent, and appeared in the days of his flesh." — T. Siory- 
p. 385. 

14. " And as he has denied the divinity of our Lord 
and Saviour Jesus Christ, he has totally rejected his 
holy offices ; his propitiatory offering for the redemption 
of mankind." 

The specifications are wanting in this case. It is one 
thing to make a charge, and another to sustain it. 
What is here meant by the " divinity of Christ ?" We 
have already shown, conclusively, that the " divinity'' 
does not consist in an outward body of flesh and blood. 
" But if your Christ doth consist of a human or earthly 
body of flesh and bone, our Christ who consisteth of a 
quickening spirit, and heavenly body, (of Divine lilt- 
and light, a spiritual and glorious body,) is above you 
and yours."— G. Whitehead, C. Quaker, p. 369. 



04 



It is evident that very vague and indefinite notions 
are entertained on this subject, by many high professors 
in Christendom. 

The Roman Catholic, in the fulness of his devotional 
feelings, invokes the holy Virgin, as the Mother of God, 
to intercede with her Son in his favor. Some theolo- 
gical writers gravely assure us, that one drop of that 
precious blood (meaning material blood,) shed upon the 
cross, is sufficient to save a thousand worlds. Others, 
describe the earthquake and the darkness which took 
place at the crucifixion, as an evidence, that some un- 
usual violenee was suffered by the author of nature. 
Such stupid and unmeaning descriptions of a thing not 
understood by them, prove, " beyond the reach of con- 
tradiction," that those who deal in these rhetorical 
flourishes, are as blindly ignorant of the true " divinity 
of Christ," as the Mahomedan, or the Hindoo. It is 
time such crude notions were discarded, and more sound 
and consistent views taken, of the doctrines of the 
New Testament. Well might Job Scott, (an approved 
minister of the society of Friends) exclaim, in the 
depth of his religious feelings and travail for the prospe- 
rity of truth, " I fear not the heathen's rage, or the 
people's imagination of vain things ; for I know, with 
all the certainty that I know any gospel truth, that in 
the midst of a high profession of Christ, darkness co- 
vers the. earth, and gross darkness the people : and I 
care not how soon their false rest is disturbed. — yea, 
rather, I wish it may be disturbed, and believe it will be 
so ; for the Spirit of the Lord is grieved with the lifeless, 
unsanctified, and unsound profession of Christianity that 
abounds in the nations." — Preface to Salvation by 
Christ. 

The true "divinity of Christ," as it was described and 
understood by the Apostles, is marked, in broad and 
legible characters in the public discourses of Elias 
J Ticks. Do you profess to be "masters in Israel and 

8 



58 

know not these things ?',' " How instructive was it is 
the man Jesus, in that Dutward tabernacle. * In him 
was life, and the life was the light of men, Amd the 
light shineth in darkness, and the darkness compre- 
hendeth it not.' (John, 1. 4, 5.) Wherefore, this light is 
in every one of us* We have all a manifestation suffi- 
cient for our end. He had the fulness of it, as we have 
our several allotments." (Phila. Ser. p. 10.) And 
Pennington tells us that, " that which sanctified and 
kept the body pure, and made all acceptable in him, 
was the life, holiness, and righteousness of the Spirit. 
And, the same thing that kept his vessel pure, it is the 
same thing that cleanseth us." " And the Spirit by 
which he was actuated," (the eternal word which dwelt 
in him) " is the light and life which is the Saviour of the 
soul." (Hicks.) Again. " As to the divinity of the 
son of the Virgin, — When he had arrived to a full state 
of sonship in the spiritual generation, he was wholly swal- 
lowed up into the divinity of his heavenly Father, with 
only this difference ; his Father's divinity was unde* 
rived, being self existent ; but, the Son's divinity was 
altogether derived from the Father ; for otherwise he 
could not be the Son of God ; as in the moral," (or na- 
tural) " relation, to be a son of man, the son must be 
begotten by one father, so as to say, I and my father 
are one, in all these respects." — (E. Hicks, Quaker, 
tr.4..p. 284.; 

This is a full acknowledgment of the true divinity of 
Christ ; a divinity exclusively derived from the " Ever- 
lasting Father," who is the alone source and origin of 
all that is divine. " For the moment any other real 
source of goodness" (or divinity) " is admitted, another 
God is that moment admitted." " It is as dark as 
Egyptian darkness, to talk of three eternal persons in 
the only one God. He is one for ever. There is no 
twain in him. Even his wisdom and his power are not 
twain in him ; for he is wisdom and wholly wisdom : he 



59 

is power and wholly power : and so of his other attri- 
butes as we call them." (J. Scott.) The " Everlasting Fa- 
ther" manifested in the Son constitutes the son's divinity. 
According to the doctrine of the Apostle John. " In the 
beginning was the word ;" the creative energy, or 
power of the Deity. " And the word was with God ; * 
absolutely and necessarily inherent in the Deity. " And 
the word was God ;" the whole divine nature belonged 
to it. " All things were made by Him, and without Him 
was not any thing made that was made." When this 
all creative power, which was inherent in the Deity 
from all eternity, and which was God, was put forth into 
action, " worlds were created." " And the word 
was made" (or took flesh, for it is absurd to suppose 
that the divinity was transubstantiated into flesh) " and 
dwelt among men." The " Everlasting Father," the 
" Eternal Word," the "light," or "life," which are one 
and the same divine essence, manifested himself in that 
outward body, prepared for a particular work and ser- 
vice. " And in him was life ;" the " Eternal Word" 
which was God, abiding in him. " He had the fulness 
of it, as we have our several allotments." — (Hicks.) 
And this same life was and is, the light of men ; the 
light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 
Agreeably with the Apostle Paul's testimony " The 
Grace of God, which bringeth salvation, hath appeared 
unto all men. &c." (Tit. 2. 11.) This grace, light, or 
life, " is the gospel preached to every" (rational) "crea- 
ture under heaven." (Col. 1. 23.) For the gospel 
was not outwardly preached to the tenth part of the in- 
habitants of the earth. If then, it was not preached in- 
ternally, by this light or life, to every soul born into the 
world, the testimony of the Apostle cannot be true. 
And the Gospel is " the power of God, and the wisdom of 
God ;" manifested in the soul of man, by the light which 
enlightens every man that comes into the world. Again : 
the same Apostle says in one of his Epistles. " I travel 



60 

in birth again untill Christ be formed in you." (Gal. 4, 
19.) And, again. "Know ye not your own selves how that 
Jesus Christ is in you except ye be reprobates." (2 Cor. 
13. 5.) How is Christ to be formed in us? The word is 
used in both the passages last quoted, as well as in many 
other places in the New Testament, to denote the divine 
life, grace, or spirit, as it is manifested to man. For 
Christ properly speaking, is "God manifested in the 
flesh," at all times, and under all circumstances. 

The life of God in the soul of man, " begotten by the 
incorruptible seed and Word of God," is " Christ in us 
the hope of Glory." A portion of the same light and 
life, of the same wisdom and power, of the same " Eter- 
nal Word," the fulness of which, dwelt in the Man Je- 
sus, is given to enlighten, and redeem every man that 
comes into the world. " Let this mind be in you which 
was also in Christ.'' (Phil. 2. 5.) The indwelling of the 
Eternal Word, in the Man Jesus, is what constituted him 
a Son of God, and in which his divinity consisted, ac- 
cording to the uniform tenor of the doctrines of the 
New Testament. And if we attempt to depart from 
this plain and consistent ground, we shall either re- 
ject his divinity altogether, or acknowledge two Gods : 
there is no possibility of escaping one or the other of 
these alternatives. The Apostles often use, in the fi- 
gurative language common in the scriptures, the terms 
Christ, or Jesus, or both together, to denote this Spi- 
ritual life ; as in the texts already quoted, and in many 
other places ; and also the blood of Christ, expressive 
of the same thing. Thus in (I John 1.7.) " The 
blood of Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all sin," 
can mean, neither more nor less than this Spiritual lifej 
the same life that was in him, and which is the light of 
men. And that G. Fox so understood the text, is proved 
by his frequent introduction', in his book of doctrinals, 
of the explanatory phrase, (" Spiritual life,") when quo- 
ting this and similar passages. " The new and second 



61 

covenant," says he, " is dedicated with the blood, the 
life of Christ Jesus, which is the alone attonement unto 
God, by which all his people are washed, sanctified, 
cleansed, and redeemed to God." " In him was life, 
and the life was the light of men." 

For want of attention to this figurative mode of ex- 
pression, so often used in the bible, and by neglecting 
to seek for that " anointing'" which gives us a right 
understanding cf what is therein written, much confu- 
sion has arisen, in the attempts to explain scripture 
doctrine, and endless disputations and janglings have 
been produced among the professors of the Christian 
name. The shadow has often been put for the sub- 
stance — the sign for the thinjj signified — and the veil, 
for the spiritual life which it covers. 

It would be an instructive examination, to trace 
the beautiful analogy which exists, between the out- 
ward appearance of Christ in the flesh, and the birth 
of God in the soul of man, which is the legitimate off- 
spring of the Spirit -^ God. When the angel appeared unto 
Mar} and said to her " the Holy Ghost shall come upon 
thee, ana ii„ power of the highest shall overshadow 
thee: &c." (Luke 1. — 35.) she remained perfectly pas- 
sive to the will of God concerning her; otherwise the 
purposes of divine wisdom could not have been effected 
in her. " Behold the handmaid of my Lord, be it unto 
me according to thy word." Thus when the soul is fa- 
vored with a visitation, or overshadowing of divine love 
and life, if it remain in a state of perfect resignation 
and obedience to this light, it is in a condition to expe- 
rience that spiritual birth fully effected, which is heir to 
the kingdom of God. That holy thing thus formed and 
brought forth in man, is a child, or son of God. " For 
as many as are led by the spirit of God, they are the 
sons of God." (Paul.) Christ, the hope of glory is thus 
formed in man. 

And if we trace the analogy still further, we -shall 



62 

fkid it to hold, from his birth to his resurrection. The 
miracles which he performed, in healing the sick, 
cleansing the lepers, casting out devils, restoring sight 
to the blind, and causing the deaf to hear ; are typical 
of the mighty works this new birth will effect in the 
passive s obedient soul. It will heal all its maladies, 
cleanse it from the leprosy of sin, cast out and overcome 
those evil habits and dispositions, which are very ap- 
propriately denominated devils — open the blind eyes to 
see the things that belong to its everlasting peace — and 
the deaf ears to hear the voice of the Son of God and 
li/e. Hence the term " Christ'' is often used to signify 
this new and spiritual birth, without reference to any 
particular person or individual. But space would fail to 
trace these things in all their different relations. " The 
spiritually minded man only can make a right use of 
them." 

We shall proceed to give some extracts from friends* 
writings, in corroboration of the arguments adduced ; 
and to show that the doctrine of Elias Hicks on the 
divinity, is not only scriptural, but also in accordance 
with that of the society of Friends from the beginning. 

Much of the difference of opinion which has of latter 
times, made so great a commotion in the society, arises 
from a mis-apprehension of the meaning of scripture 
terms, and from applying a literal signification to figu- 
rative expressions. 

" J\ow whereas the emperor of the Turks, saith that 
he is commander and guardian of the Christian's cruci- 
fied God. Now in this he is mistaken ; for the eternal, 
incomprehensible, invisible, everlasting God, whose di- 
vinity extends throughout the whole earth, who is God 
in heaven above, and in the earth beneath, to whom all 
nations are but as the drop of a bucket ; this is the true 
Christian's God, whom they serve and worship in his 
spirit and truth, which the Jews did not crucify, nor 
could they crucify, and it is blasphemy for the Jews, or any 



to say, that they did crucify the true Christian'* Eter- 
nal, infisible God ; and great ignorance for any to say, 
that the true Christian's God was crucified." — George 
Fox's Doctrinals. page, 1006. 
"Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God, by mira- 
cles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him, 
this Jesus, the son of Mary, the Jews with their wicked 
hands did take, crucify, and slay." (Ibid. 1007.) 

" Ques. Who was man's redeemer out of the fall ? 

Ans. The Eternal Word, or Son of the Father, even 
the wisdom and power which went forth from the founda- 
tion in the creation ; the same goeth forth from the 
bosom of the Father, to purify the creature, and so 
bringeth the creature back (being purified and cleansed) 
into his bosom again. 

Ques. With what doth this Word, or redeemer, 
redeem ? 

Ans. With his own life, with his own blood, with his 
own eternal virtue and purity. He descendeth into the 
lower parts of the earth, becomes flesh there, sows his 
seed in his prepared earth,* begets of his own likeness, 
and nourisheth up his birth, with his flesh and blood 
unto life everlasting. 

Ques. What is this life ? or how doth it first manifest 
itself in the darkness ? 

Ans. It is the light of men. It is that which gave light 
to Adam at first, again to him after the fall, and to all 
men since the fall. It enlightens in nature ; it enligh- 
tened under the law. It did enlighten under the gospel 
before the apostacy, and again since the apostacy, 

Ques. How doth the light enlighten ? 

Ans. By its shining. The Eternal Word moves, the 
life opens, the light shines ; this, in the least degree, is 
the beginning of redemption ; in its fulness it is redemp- 
tion perfected." — I, Pennington, Vol. 2. p. 281. 

"What was Christ's righteousness? Was it not the 
life., the virtue, the spirit of the Father in him, he beino 



64 

one with it, in the faith of it, and in the obedience to it' r 
—-Ibid, vol. 3. p. 286. 

" Jenner takes up a whole chapter in his endeavors 
to prove, that we deny the Lord that bought us, though 
very falsely and unsuccessfully. 

Because we deny that person (the Son of God,) that 
died at Jerusalem, to be our Saviour. Which most hor- 
rid imputation has been answered, more (I believe) than 
a thousand times, by declaring that, he that laid down 
his life, and suffered his body to be crucified, by the 
Jews, without the gates of Jerusalem, is Christ the only 
Son of the most high God. But that thf* outward person 
that suffered, was properly the Son of God, we utterly 
deny ; and it is a perfect contradiction to their own 
principles : a body hast thou prepared me said the Son : 
then the Son was not the body,though the body was the 
Son's. And that we deny justification by the righteous- 
ness, which Christ hath fulfilled in his own person for 
us, (wholly without us,) and therefore deny the Lord 
that bought us. And indeed this we deny, and boldly 
affirm it, in the name of the Lord, to be the doctiine of 
devils, and an arm of the son of corruption, which does 
now deluge the whole world. — Wm. Penn, Vol. 2. 
pp. 65, 66. 

" From the origin, nature and effects of this body, 
flesh and blood of Christ, it is apparent it is spiritual, 
and to be understood of a spiritual body, and not of that 
body or temple of Jesus Christ, which was born of the 
Virgin Mary, and in which he walked, lived, and suf- 
fered in the land of Judea." — Barclay's Apology, p. 448. 

" I came to see the idolatry of all professors, as to 
the person of Christ, as to the body, flesh and blood : 
and that the faith of most professors went no further than 
the veil, the outward, and reached not to Christ the 
Saviour, the life, the arm and power of God, not to 
Christ in spirit, but in flesh. — T. Zachary, p. 6. 

" We have very narrow apprehensions of Christ, and 



0*5 

the manifestation of the glory of Christ, limiting it t« 
the one man, when the truth is, that Christ and all the 
Saints make up but one Christ. (I. Cor. 12 — 12.) And 
God as truly manifested) himself in the flesh of all his, 
as he did in Christ, although the measure of that mani- 
festation is different." — T. Collier. 

" This light, wherewith we are enlightened, is the 
life of Jesus, which he hath given a ransom for man. 
And that was not natural, as some foolishly imagine ; 
for if it were natural, it would not be a ransom for man 
out of sin." — Stephen Crisp, p. 125. 

" He" (the opposer of Friends,) " should rather have 
said, that Christ's coming and suffering without, was 
because men had turned from the light within. For if 
all had walked in his light within, he had not been 
persecuted and murdered." — Ch. Quaker, by G. White- 
head, p. 262. 

How r can this be made to square with the opinion 
that it was pre-ordained, that Christ should suffer death, 
by the hands of wicked men, as, the only means appointed 
by divine wisdom, for the redemption, and salvation of 
a fallen world ? 

For pre-ordination, places the result beyond the con- 
trol of man's free-agency. And if ordained, the Jews 
who were instruments in the accomplishment of the de- 
termined purpose of God, must have performed a meri- 
torious and righteous act, in thus condemning the in- 
nocent. 

" For it is not your peace and joy above the seed of 
God, which is meek and low in heart, that will stand 
you instead, in the day of trial ; for that is the joy of the 
hypocrite (above the life of God) which is but for a mo- 
ment ; but come you all down into the valley of tears, 
and bear and suffer with the precious groaning seed, 
which yet in bondage lieth in you, that so its joy you 
may come to know, which no man can take from you ; 
and come to know the Immanuel, Grod with us, and 

9 



w 

Christ in us; and he that pieachethany other Saviour, 
gospel, or way to eternal salvation, but the Immanuel, 
the Son of God, his life, power and wisdom in him to 
redeem his soul, (which is in him) from the curse, wrath, 
and power of darkness, which is in man; yea, I say, if 
an angel should preach contrary to this gospel, the light 
and poiver of God, which is everlasting, whose founda- 
tion in man is already laid ; I say from the presence of 
the Lord God, he is accursed. For this testimony I 
bear from the Eternal life and power of God, that the 
Saviour of man's soul, (which is spiritual) is a pure 
spiritual power of life, and infinite love wr mght in man, 
through the light in all them that wait in the uprightness 
and quietness of their spirits, in the simplicity of their 
hearts." — Wm. Bayly's works, p. 24. 

" Hence, as a son, Christ was and is as absolutely and 
entirely dependent upon the Father as any of us. In- 
deed, were he not so, he would not be like us in all 
things, sin excepted ; as we can do no good thing mere- 
ly of ourselves, so he, if like us in all things but sin, 
can do no good of himself, merely and independently. 
Hence he could not do many mighty works in some 
places, because of the people's unbelief, the Father, by 
his eternal power, not making way there for the visible 
display of the glory and power of the Sonship. Nor was 
this total dependency confined wholly to power ; it was 
as real in regard to wisdom and knowledge ; and so cer- 
tainly as we have no real wisdom and knowledge, but 
what we have received, so certainly was the case the 
same with the blessed Jesus. Hence, he himself speaks 
of a day or hour, which no man, nor angel, nay, nor 
even the son himself, but the Father only knoweth. — 
Some may think this very strange — but it must be so, 
if he is, except sin, like us in all things; and if he were 
not in all things else like us, his triumph and victory over 
all the powers of death and darkness, would not assure 
us of the possibility and certainty, upon our standing 



faithful, of our victoriously triumphing in like manner."* 
— J. Scott's Salvation by Christy page 21. 

But it would swell this review beyond all ordinary 
bounds, to transcribe the hundredth part of the writings, 
of our predecessors, which are in confirmation of the 
doctrines n w preached by Elias Hicks ; and for which 
he has been assailed with all the weapons that ingenuity 
could devise, by those who have separated from the 
society. But they all fall powerless at his feet. Pro- 
tected by the shield of truth, and armed with the sword 
of the Spirit, he is invincible to all the fiery darts of his 
adversaries. And so long as he keeps his standing in 
the truth, as we trust and believe he will continue to do 
unto the end, no weapon that ever has been, or ever 
may be formed against him will prosper. " If this work 
or this council be of men, it will come to nothing ; but if 
it be of God, you cannot overthrow it ; lest haply you be 
found fighting against God." — Gamaliel. 

15. " And has denied his resurrection, and ascension 
into heaven, asserting that Iris body returned to the 
earth, where it will rest with our bodies to all eternity, 
and moulder into its mother dust." 

This charge is totally groundless. It is without the 
shadow of evidence to support it. There is nothing in 
the letters, or public discourses, of Elias Hicks, which 
gives the least countenance to such an accusation. It is 
wholly taken from the celebrated u Pine street docu- 
ment" — a document got up by a domineering party in the 
monthly meeting of Philadelphia, for the southern dis- 
trict, held at Pine street house ; in which are enume- 
rated many supposed, unsound opinions, said to have 
been delivered by him in a sermon preached in that 
meeting-house, on the 10th day of the 12th month 



* The above extract was intended to hare been inserted after the con- 
sideration of the 12th Article in the testimonj, but was overlooked. It 
more immediately applies to the questions arising under that Arttele, than 
this. 



m 

1826, among which, that of denying the resurrection of 
.Tesns Christ is not the least. This said " Pine street 
document" has heen ah]y reviewed in vol. 2. of the 
" Friend, or Advocate of truth, " in which the perver- 
sions and mis-representations it contains, are exposed ; 
to which rev. ew, the reader is referred. Happily the 
sermon was taken down in short hand, and speaks for 
itself. It was published in the first vol. of the "Quaker" 
where all who are disposed to examine it, may satisfy 
themselves. We shall extract from it the only two 
passages it contains, which have been supposed to have 
any allusion to the question of the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ. It will be seen, that one of them, does not 
touch the question at ail ; any more than it does that of 
the Newtonian system of Philosophy ; and that the 
other cannot be made to give any support to the charge. 

After speaking of the new birth, or the birth of the 
Spirit, and quoting the language used to Nicodemus. 
(John 3. — 6.) he proceeds thus : " so that we see man 
is a two fold creature, and must experience a two fold 
birth. First, he is born into the world an animal, com- 
posed of flesh and blood, all of the earth — all produced 
out of the dust of the earth ; and all flesh and blood re- 
turns to the earth again, because it is mortal. It is a 
thing, designed in the wisdom of God to continue only 
for a while, as a tabernacle for the immortal soul to go 
through its exercises in. And when it has finished its 
course, a separation takes place ; the body returns to 
the dust — to the bosom of its mother earth, and there 
lies in eternal quiet — and it is not accountable to God ; 
for it is not in bones io think, or flesh to reason. The 
animal body is not accountable to God, because he has 
put it under the direction of the immortal soul, and 
given it sovereignty over it." — Quaker, v. I. p. 57. 

" He had loved righteousness, you perceive, and 
therefore was prepared to receive the fulness of the 
Spirit, the fulness of that divine anointing : for there 



m 

was no germ of evil, in him or about him ; both 
his soul and body were pure. He was anointed above 
all his fellows, to be head of the Church, the top stone, 
the chief corner stone, elect and precious. And what 
was it that was a saviour ? Not that which was outward ; 
it was not flesh and blood : for " flesh and blood cannot 
inherit the kingdom of heaven." (God.) — I. Cor. 15, 50. 
It must go to the earth from whence it was taken. It 
was that life, — that same life, that 1 have already men- 
tioned, that was in him, and which is the light and life 
of men, and which lighteth every man, and consequently, 
every woman that cometh into tbe world." — ibid p. 69. 

The subject of the resurrection is not under discus- 
sion at all in the sermon from which these extracts are 
made, — there is no allusion to it in any part of it. Yet 
this is the discourse, and these are the parts of it, upon 
which the broad, and comprehensive charge of denying 
the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, is found- 
ed — or rather we ought to have said, upon the Pine-street 
document ; for the language, in which the charge is ex- 
pressed, is nearly a literal transcript from that instru- 
ment, but is no where found in the sermon where it is 
said to have been used. As well might they accuse 
him of denying the authenticity of Livy's history of 
Rome, and attempt to establish the charge from this 
sermon. The position and the argument would be as 
fair in the one case, as in the other. But we shall jrive 
some extracts from a letter written by Elias Hicks in 
1825, in which he treats definitively of the resurrection 
of the body of Jesus — from which it is fair to infer, we 
shall obtain his real opinions on this point. 

"Therefore the resurrection of the dead body of 
Jesus, that could not possibly, of itself, create in itself, 
a power to loose the bonds of death, and which must 
consequently have been the work of an invisible power, 
points to, and is a shadow of the resurrection of the soul, 
that is dead in trespasses and sins, and that hath no ca- 



70 

paeity to quicken itself, but depends wholly on the re- 
newed influence, and quickening power of the Spirit of 
God."— Quaker, v. 4. p. 286. 

" Hence the resurrection of the outward, fleshly body 
of Jesus, and some few others under the law dispensa- 
tion, as manifested to the external senses of man, gives 
full evidence as a shadow, pointing to the sufficiency of 
the divine invisible power of God, to raise the soul from 
a state of spiritual death, into newness of life, and into 
the enjoyment of the spiritual substance of all the pre- 
vious shadows of the law state." — Ibid. p. 287. 

It is not thought necessary to pursue the subject any 
farther, as it is a gratuitous accusation disowned by 
Elias Hicks' opinion on the question at issue, clearly 
expressed. Besides, all who have read his sermons, or 
heard him preach, know that there are occasional allu- 
sions in his discourses, to the resurrection and ascension 
of Jesus Christ, as a subject on which he entertained 
no doubts. 

The disingenuousness of the manufacturers of the 
(i Pine-street document," who could twist and torture 
plain, practicable gospel truths, and extort from them 
opinions which the speaker never possessed ; is only 
equalled by the effrontery with which this charge 
is repeated by those who, from their personal know- 
ledge of Elias Hicks, must have known that it was 
utterly groundless. 

16. " He has also denied his mediation and interces- 
sion with the Father, as plainly set forth in holy writ." 

When, and where ? If you will tell us how, or in what 
manner he mediates and intercedes with the Father, 
then we shall be able to say whether he denies your 
construction of the medtation and intercession. But it 
is denied, you say, " as plainly set forth in holy writ. 11 
We have your word for this ; which we deny. And our 
denial, is as good as your assertion unsupported by evi- 
dence ; which balances the account between us. For 



7i 

uc profess to be as well acquainted with the opinions of 
Elias Hicks, on this point, as the little company, calling 
themselves, " the Monthly Meeting of West bury and 
Jericho." 

Christ the Word, " the substance veiled," ihe life and 
light, which ligbteth every man that comes into the 
world, and which is in us, except we be reprobates, is 
the only mediator and intercessor with the Father: ac- 
cording to Elias Hicks and primitive Friends. " This 
life" says George Fox, " is the alone atonement unto 
God, by which all his people are washed, sanctified, 
cleansed and redeemed to God." By this, we have 
" access to the Father." (Eph. 2. 18.) For " no man 
cometh unto the Father but by me." (the Son.) (John, 
14. 6.) And what is the Son, but this life broach' b 
in measure in man, as it was in its fulness in Je», 
even the same, that according to Elias Hicks " was the 
life and blood of Jesus Christ," — by which he " was 
born of the Spirit of his heavenly Father, and swallowed 
up fully and completely in his divine nature, so that he 
was completely divine." — (Quaker, v. 1. p. 63.) 

It is this that bears our iniquities, produces reconcili- 
ation between us and God — atones for our sins — brings 
us into union, and communion with the fountain of life, 
and is the only mediator and intercessor with the Father. 
This is the way, the truth and the life. And if any 
have found out any other way, let them beware, lest 
they be of the number of those who shall be accounted 
no better than thieves and robbers. And this is the 
ivay that Elias Hicks points us to, as is abundantly evi- 
denced in every page of his public discourses. " Let 
him that r< adeth understand." 

"He that believeth in me, as the scripture hath said, 
out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." (John 
6 — 38.) "This is the salvation of God in every age 
and dispensation; coming into this living faith, in full 
subjection to this inward hoJy gift of God, is our only re- 



72 

conciliation with him ; this inward gift is the mediatoi 
between God and man : it was so in the body prepared 
by him to do the Father's will in : it is so now in all : it 
is not one thing in him, and another in us: this is the 
bond of union, that unites God and the soul in the divine 
and saving fellowship.*" (J. Scott's salv. by Christ.) 

17. " Under the specious and captivating pre- 
tence of increased spirituality, and advancement in light 
and knowledge, beyond our primitive Friends, and even 
beyond the Apostles of our Lord, he has insii - Rted his 
unsound opinions into the minds of many members of 
our society, particularly within the limits of our own 
yearly meeting and that of Philadelphia." 

When did he make the pretence of having advanced 
"in light and knowledge beyond our primitive Friends, 
and even beyond the disciples of our Lord." ? 

He never advanced such pretensions, as it regards 
himself. But if his exhortations to press forward to- 
wards the mark of the high calling of God — if his testi- 
mony, that the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, 
is to be experienced, in progressive degrees of effulgence, 
in proportion to our faithfulness and obedience to it, 
both individually, and collectively, as a body, or visible 
church; — be deemed heretical, then indeed he must be 
a heretic. But in this, as in other instances adduced, 
he is a heretic of the same kind, and in the same way 
as our worthy predecessors. Is it thought to be a thing- 
incredible, that greater glory should be revealed than 
has ever yet been manifested, either in the Apostles days, 



* The work from which this extract is made was not originally published 
in his Journal, but approved by the Meeting for Sufferings, of New-Eng- 
land Yearly Meeting, though its publication was delayed ; as will appear 
from the following extract from their Minutes, 6th mo. 1820: 

" The subject of the writings of our deceased friend Job Scott, refered 
from the 2d mo. last, entitled ' Some brief remarks upon the nature of Sal- 
vation by Christ/shewing that it is a birth of Divine Life in Man, &c.' was 
again considered, and the sentiments of Friends expressed thereon. The 
general tenor of the pieces had the manifestation of unity." 



or in the tune of the breaking forth of the light upon our 
early friends ? Are we to suppose that either to the 
former, or the latter, the whole council of God has been 
given? There was a clear and glorious manifestation 
of the divine Spirit and power, dispensed both to the 
Apostles, and to the preachers of the everlasting gospel, 
in the days of George Fox. They were bright and 
shining lights, and many have been willing, for a season, 
to rejoice in their light. But their experience will not 
be profitable to us, unless we walk by the same rule, and 
mind the same things. We are to press forward towards 
perfection, not laying the foundation for repentance from 
dead works : but keeping our eye single to the light, we 
shall be led in the path of the just, which is described to 
be as the dawning light, which shines more and more, 
until the perfect day. 

" I have many things to say unto you but you cannot 
bear them now," remains to be as true in all ages, and to 
all nations, as at the time when it was first spoken. The 
dispensations of God to man, are always suited to his 
condition ; and increasing light and knowledge are dis- 
pensed in proportion to the capacity to receive it. If 
some faithful servants of God should come out with 
greater clearness, than any that have gone before them, 
is it to be accounted a matter of wonder and astonish- 
ment f Our early friends had a sight of a future glory, 
yet to be revealed, greater than that then manifested to 
them, or that in the days of the Apostles, as appears clear- 
ly from occasional hints found in their works. 

The following questions and answers, are from the 2d 
volume of I. Pennington's works, page 327; and are di- 
rectly in point. 

" Ques. Hath there been any further dispensation of 
life since the apostacy . ? 

Ans. There is another begun, whose glory is to ex- 
ceed the former, after the darkness (which overspread 

10 






74 

and clouded the beauty of the former) is expelled by the 
growing brightness, of that appearance. 

Ques. How may it appear that there is another? 

Ans. There is no knowing this dispensation but by 
being gathered into the light of it. Wisdom hath been 
alone justified of her children in former ages, and she 
can be justified by none else, in her appearance in this 
age. 

Ques. What is the difference of this from the for- 
mer ? 

Ans. It is more inward, more retired, more closely 
depending upon the principle of life in the spirit, than the 
former. 

Ques. Is it the same in substance ? 

Ans. Yes — the very same. The very same truth 
of Christ Jesus, the very same building of God in the 
Spirit ;— the very same church is to be again brought 
forth, but in greater glory, that being now to be left 
out, whereby the enemy then entered; and also degrees 
of beauty, strength and perfection being to be added. 

Quest. But surely a greater glory than that in the 
Apostles' days is not to be expected — nay it is not the 
belief of many that ever that shall be restored. 

Ans. This ariseth from the unbelief, and want of 
the sight of the thing by the right eye, in the right light. 

For the travail of the Eternal Spirit in its dispensa- 
tions, is towards perfection: and after the darkness of 
Anti-Christ, the brightness of the light of life, is to 
shine more clear than ever, as is abundantly testified in 
the scriptures, (especially in the book of the Revelations) 
and also seen by many in the clear openings of the 
same Eternal Spirit." Again in vol. 3. p. 241, Pen- 
nington says, " I believe he" (Christ) "is to be re- 
vealed further, and in fuller glory ; but is truly already 
revealed, as the Saviour, shepherd, and bishop of the 
soul." 

This testimony is clear and decisive, first that there 



was another dispensation began in the time of Penning- 
ton, of which he was a witness, whose glory was to ex- 
ceed the former in the days of the Apostles ; and se- 
condly, that Christ was yet to be revealed further and 
in fuller glory than that which he had seen in his day. 
He looks forward to a future time, when that dis- 
pensation, then committed to Friends, should shine in 
greater splendor and brightness, than it had ever done. 
Job Scott intimates, in no doubtful or ambiguous 
manner, that the time was hastening, when the veil 
would be rent, and a fuller display of the truths of the 
gospel, be manifested than ever had been. 

" Truth" says he " has rarely been promoted, after 
a time of stagnation, ease, and superficial profession, 
but in and through the fresh openings of something, 
that the spirit of the world, however high in profession, 
could not receive : and I am firm in the faith, that the 
veil will yet further be rent, and the covering more and 
more removed, that is spread over the face of all na- 
tions. Time and seasons will come, wherein that 
which is revealed in the ear, must and will be declared 
on the house top. The Lord is on his way, gradually 
unveiling himseli to his inquiring, seeking children ; and 
woe, woe, from an all-righteous judge, to those who 
dare to raise a hand against the right-timed openings 
and revelations, of his heavenly mysteries." If the 
time has fully come, when, in the councils of infinite 
wisdom, a fuller display of gospel truth is to be made 
to the world ; can we find an instrument more likely to 
to be used, in the Lord's hand, for advancing such a 
work, than a man against whom no cause, or " occa- 
sion" of offence has ever been found, except " concern- 
ing the law of his God . ? " 

We shall close this article with an exhortation to all 
gainsayers and opposers, to beware how they array 
themselves in opposition, to any " right-timed openings 
and revelations" of the truths of the gospel, for as- 
suredly it will not prosper. 



18 ''And having gradually prepared them to receive 
his views, he has induced great numbers to embrace 
them ; and has at length become the leader of a sect, 
(distinguished by his name, but unjustly assuming the 
character of Friends,) which first separated from the 
yearly meeting of Friends in Philadelphia, in the 4th 
mo. 1S27, on the ground of difference of doctrine, as 
they state in their printed address." 

" Has induced great numbers to embrace his views !" 
That is in other words, he has induced great numbers 
of the members of these two yearly meetings, Philadel- 
phia and New- York, to turn Quakers ! For we have 
shown, and could give more ample demonstration of the 
fact, if needful, that his " views" on all essential points 
of faith and doctrine, are the same as those of the 
society of Friends from the beginning. To embrace 
his views, then, is to turn Quakers in principle. If he 
has been influential in the establishment of many, in 
true, unsophisticated, primitive Quakerism, surely you 
are the last people in Christendom, who ought to be 
offended or displeased with him on that account — you 
who pretend to be the legitimate successors of those 
" Sons of the morning," whose living representative you 
now persecute. 

But these " views," as they are called, are not bor- 
rowed from Elias Hicks. The light, which enlightens 
every man who comes into the world, has opened the 
truths of the gospel in the minds of many friends, who 
can set their seal to the testimonies of Elias Hicks, 
that they proceed from the pure openings of the Spirit 
of Truth. These feel unity and fellowship with him in 
his labors of love among them. But they are no more 
the followers of Elias Hicks in particular, than of 
George Fox, Win. Perm, or any other good man, whose 
example is worthy of imitation. 

" And has at length become the leader of a sect dis- 
tinguished by his name •" So far as this name in 



r, 

attached to the society of Friends, who adhere to anci- 
ent principles, it is one for which we are indebted to the 
opposite party. Happily it carries with it no reproach : 
and our principal objection to it, arises from its being 
an evident misnomer. It is altogether inapplicable, 
and does not appropriately designate the people to 
whom it was intended to be applied. As well might 
they be termed Foxites, or Pennites, as Hicksites ; 
for they have unity with all these men, upon the same 
ground. 

" Which first separated from the yearly meeting of 
Friends of Philadelphia" &c. Who separated from the 
yearly meeting of Philadelphia ? Not those whom they 
are pleased to denominate Hicksites ; for these consti- 
tute that very yearly meeting. To exhibit this subject 
clearly and satisfactorily to every inquiring mind, it 
will be necessary to recur to the manner in which the 
division in that yearly meeting was effected. 

It is now generally known, that for some years pre- 
viously to the yearly meeting in 1827, a regular party, 
commonly called orthodox, had been forming in Phila- 
delphia. To trace the incipient stages of its progress 
to a systematic opposition to the great body of Friends, 
would occupy too much space in this review. It made 
its first official appearance in 1822, when a combination 
was formed, by a majority of the elders in the city, to 
stop Elias Hicks from travelling as a minister, when on 
a visit to Pennsylvania, in the order of the society ; 
with a minute from the Monthly meeting of which he 
was a member, endorsed by the Quarterly meeting, 
setting forth their unity and concurrence with him in 
that journey. But being defeated in their design, from 
that time, their secret, and open workings as a party, 
grasping at an unhallowed control over the rights and 
consciences of their fellow members, wert more dis- 
tinctly seen. 



" 78 

As the clerk is the official organ of the meetings for 
discipline, especial care was taken, in their re-appoint- 
ment, which takes place annually, to select such as 
suited their views. And in this they were but too success- 
ful. With a clerk who would consent to be the organ 
of a party, rather than the servant of the meeting, and 
who would write what suited their wishes only, and pro- 
nounce it the solid judgement of the meeting, business 
was conducted, in s»>me instances, without any regard, 
either to the feelings, or the opinions of a very large 
proportion of the members. Thus the religious com- 
pact which had held them together, in these meetings, 
as one body, was dissolved by the arbitrary proceedings 
of a few. Friends were told, in some instances " that 
they had no right to be heard," — " that it was beneath 
the dignity of the meeting to take notice of any thing 
coming from them." While this state of things contin- 
ued, the yearly meeting of 1827 approached. It was 
looked to with much interest, as a medium through 
which the disorders that afflicted the body were to he 
healed — if, indeed, they admitted of a cure. It was in- 
dispensable, when this meeting assembled, for the pro- 
per management of the important subjects that were 
likely to engage its deliberations, that the clerk should 
be one who would act as the servant of the meeting, 
not the tool of a party. The former clerk had given 
ample evidence of his contempt for the judgement and 
feelings of a majority of the members. r J he represen- 
tati?es, from the different Quarters, whose business it 
has been made, by common usage, to nominate a clerk, 
were directed, at the close of the first sitting, to stop, and 
agree upon a clerk and assistant, to be proposed at the 
afternoon session. About two thirds of their number 
were opposed to the continuance of the former clerk, 
for the reasons already given. After continuing to- 
gether, during the whole time between the morning and 
afternoon sessions, without coming to any conclusion, or 



agreeing* upon any report, they were interrupted by the 
opening of the doors, and the assembling of the people, 
for the afternoon meeting. When the meeting was 
opened, an aged friend proposed, that as the representa- 
tives had not agreed upon any report, the former clerk 
should continue to act. This proposition was dissented 
from, by a very great majority of those present — But 
as the clerk was at the desk, and in possession of the 
books, he had the modesty to record his own appoint- 
ment, in opposition to the declared will of the meeting; 
— and nothing but physical foice could displace him, 
which Friends had no disposition to resort to. Thus the 
ancient landmarks of the society were removed, and the 
rights and feelings, and the judgement of the body set at 
nought. The original conditions of the social compact, 
by which Friends were held together, in the capacity of 
a yearly meeting were broken. Union, condescension, 
and general consent, are the rule of action in this com- 
pact : and the moment a clerk was forced upon the 
meeting, against its declared wish, an arbitrary despot- 
ism usurped the place of brotherly kindness, and the 
yearly meeting was virtually dissolved. The principles 
and the authority which constituted it a legislative as- 
sembly, being abandoned, through the unbending ob- 
stinacy of a party, its legitimate functions ceased ; and 
its component parts were left perfectly free to exercise 
a wise discretion in its re-organization. How was this 
object to be achieved ? The clerk was in his seat — 
had possession of the books and papers, and had shown 
his devotion to a party inimical to the lights of the body 
of Friends. " The business thus conducted under the 
name of the yearly meeting of Philadelphia, would only 
be the edicts of a few, reckless of tLe rights of the many. 
Something ought to be done, to restore the body to 
its rights, and to placo the yearly meeting in the exer- 
cise of its proper functions." " When the representa- 
tives could not agree, respecting the choice of a clerk, 



80 

no legal organization or action could take place in trW 
yearly meeting, until that question was settled. The 
whole proceedings of the orthodox party, in conjunction 
with the clerk, who acted for them, were out of order, 
and entirely void in regard to the yearly meeting." 
(Cockburri's review,) " The interruption of the regular 
operation of the yearly meeting, by the determined zeal 
of the orthodox brethren, was cause of painful exercise 
to many friends, who, under the pressure of the existing 
state of the society, were drawn into deep sympathy 
with one another, desirous for best direction how to 
proceed under circumstances of a character so peculi- 
arly trying and unprecedented in the annals of the soci- 
ety. Many of the representatives, and other friends, met 
in conference, and after deliberate consideration, judged 
it most expedient to exhibit to the members of the yearly 
meeting at large, an outline of the actual state of things, 
and to invite them generally to meet in conference, on 
the first 2nd day, in the 6th month, that all might have 
an opportunity to deliberate, and feel what was best to 
be done." (Ibid.) 

After having several times met at Green Street house, 
an address* to the members of the yearly meeting was 
adopted and ordered to be circulated, inviting a meet- 
ing in the 6th month. There is nothing in this address to 
justify the assertion, that Friends made a difference in 
doctrine, a ground of separation. The accusation of 



* I regret that my limits will not admit of the insertion of this address 
to the members of the Yearly Meeting, as well as the Epistle in thr 6th 
mo, 1827. They will be found in " Co. kburn's Review," from which work 
I have made a few short extracts. This work gives a general view of the 
division in Pennsylvania, and the causes which led to it ; and was written 
by a person in every respect well qualified for the task; and who was an 
eye-witness of most of the facts he has recorded. I have bren personally 
acquainted with the author, for twenty-five years, andean say he is a man 
of a sound and discriminating judgement — less liable than most men to be 
ruffled by passion, or biased bj prejudice ; and that full reliance may be 
placed in his statements. The work may be had at No. 420 Pearl-strecf. 
New- York. 



31 

unsoundness in doctrine, has uniformly proceeded from 
the opposite party. The subject is only incidental ly 
mentioned in the address as a fact, that " doctrines be- 
lieved by one part to be sound and edifying, were pro- 
nounced by the other to be unsound and spurious." This 
is given as evidence of an intolerant spirit, on the part 
of those called orthodox, producing feelings averse to a 
reconciliation. But the whole stress of the measures 
proposed by friends, is laid upon the actions of the op- 
posing party, and the necessity that was imposed upon 
them, to use means for preserving the rights of conscience 
unimpaired. 

Agreeably with the recommendation in this address 
friends met in conference in the 6th month 1827: which 
meeting was attended by friends from all parts of the 
yearly meeting. The following extract from the Epistle 
issued by that meeting will explain the nature of the 
business transacted, as well as the temper and feeling 
which prevailed. After tracing the progress of a spirit 
of strife and contention in religious society, and portray- 
ing its desolating effects, the Epistle proceeds. 

" Friends have viewed this state of things amongst us 
with deep concern and exercise, patiently waiting in a 
hope, that time and reflection would convince our breth- 
ren of the impropriety of such a course, and that, being- 
favored to see the evil consequences of such conduct, 
they might retrace their steps. But, hitherto, we have 
waited in vain. Time and opportunity for reflection 
have been amply afforded, but have not produced these 
desirable results. On the contrary, the spirit of discord 
and confusion has gained strength ; and to us there now 
appears no way to regain the harmony and trnquility 
of the body, but by withdrawing ourselves — not from the 
society of Friends, nor from the exercise of its salutary 
discipline — but from religious communion with those 
who have introduced, and seem disposed to continue such 
disorders amongst us. 

11 



82 

The quiet and solemnity of our meetings for divine 
worship — the blessings of a gospel ministry ;inshackfed 
by human authority — the preservation of our religious 
liberty — the advancement of our christian testimonies — 
and the prosperity of truth, so far as it is connected with 
our labors, we believe, very much depend upon the 
early adoption of this measure." 

It then recommends to the Quarterly meetings which 
may be prepared for the measure to appoint representa- 
tives to attend an extra session of the yearly meeting to 
be held in the 10th month following. 

A yearly meeting was accordingly held in conformity 
with the recommendation in the address, which was at- 
tended by friends from all parts of the yearly meeting, 
and to which five Quarterly meetings and three monthly 
meetings sent representatives. 

The adjourned session of the yearly meeting which 
was held in the 4th month 1828, was attended by repre- 
sentatives from 10 Quarterly meetings ; and in the 8th 
month following, Philadelphia Quarterly meeting was 
added to the number of constituent branches, which sent 
representatives in the 4th month 1829. 

So that in two years from the dissolution of the yearly 
meeting in 1827. it has been re-organized and established 
on its ancient foundation, according to the principles of 
its first institution ; composed of the same constituent 
Quarterly meetings, and comprising among its acknowl- 
edged members, more than three fourths of those who 
originally belonged to it. And this is what has been 
called separating from the yearly meeting. As well 
might it be said, that the meeting had separated from 
itself. It was not personal convenience that was to be con- 
sulted in this case, — their dearest rights as men and chris- 
tians were the objects to be secured. The ancient land_ 
marks were removed — the principles of the original com. 
pact were departed from — the spirit of forbearance, and 
brotherly kindness, which is the rule of action in all as- 



83 

semblies for the administration of the discipline was dis 
regarded ; and the tics which held the body together 
were dissolved. It therefore became, not only a duty, 
but also a matter of necessity for the members of the 
yearly meeting of Philadelphia to assemble, at a time, 
and under circumstances, where the causes, which had 
interrupted the harmony, and destroyed the legitimate 
functions of the body should not be permitted to act. 
And in thus assembling and organizing that meeting 
anew ; or renewing the exercise of its proper functions, 
no discipline of the society was infringed upon on the 
part of those thus assembled. It was a state of society 
not expected ever to exist, and therefore not contem- 
plated in the discipline. The violation of the order and 
usages of friends was on the part of those whose illegal 
proceedings had created this necesity. 

By a careful review cf the progress of events in 
that yearly meeting, as well as in other places, it will 
be clearly perceived, that the orthodox friends, have 
been the prime movers, and efficient cause of all 
the disorders, and violations of the discipline and usages 
of the society ; though they have strenuously labored to 
cast the odium upon Friends. The attempt to stop 
Elias Hicks, in J 822, from travelling as a minister, 
their first official overt act as a party, was a departure 
from the discipline and usages of Friends. What right, 
it ma> be asked, had they to call before a tribunal of 
their own creation, a member of another yearly meet- 
ing, travelling with a minute of the approbation of the 
monthly and quarterly meetings to which he belonged, 
to answer for offences supposed to have been committed 
mithin his own yearly meeting, before this minute was 
granted, and supported too, by a single witness ? The 
whole proceeding was a stetch of power, which Elias 
Hicks, as an honest man, and, friend of or»der, could not 
sanction, by consenting to meet them, in the manner 
proposed by them. It was travelling out of their juris- 



84 

diction, and assuming an authority, which, was never 
intended to be exercised by any set of men in the society- 
And out of this attempt against Elias Hicks in 1822, 
has grown the subsequent dissension, and final separa- 
tion in that yearly meeting. Again; What right had 
one portion ef a monthly meeting to despoil of their 
rights, a very large proportion of their members, 
merely because they could not pronounce the Shib- 
boleth of orthodoxy, so far as totally to disregard their 
feelings, or their opinions, on questions under delibera- 
tion, and to declare that it was beneath the dignity of 
the meeting to take any notice of any thing that came 
from them ? Such a right never existed in any part of 
a meeting. It was a violation of the discipline, which di- 
rects, that the business be conducted with decency, 
forbearance, and love of each other .It was a departure 
from the usages of Friends, which establishes the prac- 
tice of moving in harmony, and with the general con- 
sent of the members. Again. From what construction 
of the discipline, or from what precedent, furnished by 
the annals of the society, did the Quarterly meeting of 
Philadelphia derive the right to lay down Green-street 
monthly meeting, as was pretended to be done, for the 
very sound and valid reason, that, that meeting had 
prsumed to release from his station, an elder who had 
lost his usefulness as an elder, and that too in opposi- 
tion to the judgement of a majority of the members of 
the Quarter . p In this case the discipline, the rights 
of a whole meeting, an I the established usages of the 
society, were immolated at the shrine of ambition and 
love of power, as far as an illegal and unauthorised act 
could effect these objects. And to sum up the whole, 
and to bring these arbitrary proceedings to a crisis, be- 
yond which forbearance and submission were no longer 
virtues, in the yearly meeting in 1827, as we have seen, 
the whole body was trampled' upon, and deprived of 
their inalienable rights ; and the principles of its 



95 

association destroyed, fey the compulsory retention of a 
clerk in office, contrary to the decided judgement of 
the meeting.* 

19 " They held a separate meeting in that 
month, and in the 6th and 10th months following, and 
also in the 4th month, 1828 ; which last meeting, Elias 
Hicks attended, gave it his countenance, and received a 
minute of its unity with him and his services." 

Separate from whom ? From the brick walls at Arch 
Street, and the influence of a few leaders, who, instead 
of being fathers in the Church, had labored hard to lord 
it over God's heritage. 

They had shaken off the incubus that had lain upon 
their vitals, and obstructed the free circulation of life in 
the body. But of whom were these meetings composed ? 
Of the representatives of at least three-fourths of the 
members, originally belonging to the yearly meeting ; 
in the 4th month, 1828, by representatives from all the 
Quarters, except one, which has since been re-organized 
and added to the body. And was it a crime in Elias 
Hicks, to attend the yearly meeting of Philadelphia, and 
to receive a minute of its unity and approbation with 
him and his services ? It is one of which we trust 
he will never have cause to repent. It is well 
known to be a common practice, to give such minutes to 
strangers on suitable occasions. — 

20. (See testimony, p. 9, for this article. Its length 
prevents its insertion here.) 

Some of the members of Philadelphia yearly meeting 
were present, and were permitted to sit, because, bein«- 
members of the society of Friends, they had a right to 
be present at all meetings of discipline. It is true, 
some of them had been the subjects of orthodox pro- 
scription in Pennsylvania. But these proceedings beino- 



* We have given more attention to thisarHde, of the division in Phila- 
delphia, because it has been made the pretext, on the part of those called 
orthodox, for their subsequent unprecedented proceedings in other yearlv 
meetin^s. 



86 

out of the established order of Friends, were not consi- 
dered as being of any force or validity. The minority 
objected to their being present, but their objections 
were not sustained : on the contrary, the meeting de- 
cided in favor of their previous rights. Upon this 
solid ground, the orthodox members left the house 
and retired to Rutgers College, of their own free will 
and choice ; and thus separated themselves from the 
body, in a state of absolute rebellion against its autho- 
rity, clearly expressed and ascertained, while in the ex- 
ercise of its legitimate functions. The number that 
left the meeting, including strangers was 251 — of whom 
235 entered the College. The number that remained in 
the house, exclusive of those not members of New- York 
yearly meeting was 740. From these facts, and from 
all the circumstances of the case, the nicest casuist 
would find no difficulty in deciding which company was 
the yearly meeting of New-York. Yet, this body of 
friends, who remained in the house, and attended to 
their business in the usual manner, is the " separate 
meeting," which they say, is called a yearly meeting. 
But, we deny that Elias Hicks, took an active part in any 
tumultuous, or disorderly proceedings. The disorder in 
that meeting arose from the refusal of the few, to acqui- 
esce in, or submit to, the judgement of the many. This 
necessarily caused a good deal of excitement in the 
meeting, and the pertinacity with which the orthodox 
adhered to their determination, to exclude the mem- 
bers of a neighboring yearly meeting, added to the 
collision and strife, which had been witnessed 
in many of the subordinate meetings, produced a 
state of feeling, very different from that which usually 
predominates in such assemblies. But, Elias Hicks, so 
far from taking an active part in any thing bordering 
upon disorder or tumult, used his endeavours to quell 
the excitement, and calm the minds of friends. 

21. " Since that time, he has travelled into Ohio, 
Indiana, and elsewhere encouraging his followers, in 



holding meetings, in different parts of this continent in 
opposition to the order of our society." 

This article, with a few triffling alterations might be 
rendered unexceptionable. We would suggest, for the 
consideration of the farmers of this document ; that it be . 
altered so as to read thus : — " Since which time, he has 
travelled into Ohio, Indiana, and elsewhere, sorely 
against our will, and contrary to our puissant order re- 
calling him, though he had a minute from his own monthly 
meeting, endorsed by the Quarter, granted before the 
division ; and the unity and concurrence of three-fourths 
of the members, originally constituting the yearly meeting 
of New York." But we deny, that he ever either held 
meetings himself, or encouraged others to hold them out 
of the order of the society of Friends. He has never tra- 
velled as a minister, without a minute of the unity and 
concurrence of his friends at home, which authorised him 
to appoint meetings within certain limits, which he never 
exceeded. And, in the late journey to the westward, he 
had this unity and concurrence expressed in an official 
manner, according to established order, which authorised 
him to appoint meetings within the compass of five 
yearly meetings. In some places, where the opposite 
party bore sway, the meeting-houses were closed against 
him, which was a breach of order, as well as common 
civility ; yet on such occasions, when they assembled in 
barns, and under the trees, their meetings were large 
and satisfactory. He has been a man of order from his 
youth — a strict observer in his own life and conduct, 
and a promoter in others, of the discipline established 
among Friends. 

22. (See Testimony, p. 9.) 
This article brings us to the most singular, and 
manifest departure from the discipline and usages of 
the society of Friends, that our history furnishes. 
Who ever heard of a minister in unity with the yearly 
meeting to which he belonged, being denounced, and 
proscribed by another yearly meeting ? Or who would 



88 

have believed, twenty years ago, that such an open and 
palpable breach of Church fellowship, would ever be tole- 
rated by any portion of the society. The proceeding was at 
variance with the first principles of their union as one 
people. At the time this system of proscription was 
sanctioned by the yearly meeting of Indiana, it was 
well known there was no separation in New- York, and 
that Elias Hicks was in unity with that yearly meeting. 
Yet knowing this fact, a document was introduced into 
the yearly meeting held at Richmond, Indiana ; and 
carried through the said meeting, by the influence of a 
few leading characters, aided by a large number of 
members of other yearly meetings, many of whom, it is 
presumed attended for that purpose. This document 
contained garbled extracts from the sermons of Elias 
Hicks, contrasted, it would seem, with others, selected 
to suit a particular purpose, from the writings of primi- 
tive friends, to prove, that he had departed from the faith 
of our predecessors. 

By the same rule of selection adopted in this instru- 
ment, we could array George Fox against Wm. Penn : 
Barclay against both, and prove, with equal facility 
that all three had denied the faith ; nay more — we 
could array Paul against James, Peter against Paul, 
and even Paul against Paul : and prove with the same 
kind of certainty that the Apostles were heretics. By 
selecting detached, unconnected portions of their Epis- 
tles, and giving them a construction to suit a particular 
purpose, and then contrasting these with other detached 
portions, we could prove with all imaginable facility, 
that they were utterly incompatible. These remarks 
are not meant to justify an opinion, that there are any 
actual discrepancies between them ; but to exhibit 
the unfairness of the manner of proceeding against Elias 
Hicks, adopted both in the " Epistle and Testimony" 
of Indiana yearly meeting, and in all the previous and 
subsequent " Testimony," "Epistles" and "Declara- 



89 

tions," which have been poured forth, within the last 
two years. And wherever they have been visited upon the 
society, their legitimate fruits have been contention, 
strife, and division. 

The introduction of this document into the yearly 
meeting of Indiana was unlooked for by that body. 
The meeting was taken by surprise, and it was 
suffered to pass, without that kind of scrutiny, which so 
novel and important a procedure required. But it was 
immediately foreseen, by many who beheld these pass- 
ing events at a distance, and who watched with scruti- 
nizing- attention the signs of the times, that by this 
measure, the seeds of discoid and division were sown, 
which would speedily ripen into an open rupture. And 
the event has more than realized our gloomy forebo- 
dings. The violence and phrenzy with which the 
orthodox leaders in the west, pursued their measures 
for suppressing free inquiry, and binding the consciences 
of the members, hastened a catastophe, which might have 
been otherwise prevented; at least for a time. " They 
sowed to the wind and have reaped the whirlwind." 

By the same kind of management, the Indiana Epis- 
tle was carried through the yearly meetings of North 
Carolina, Virginia, and Rhode Island, 

Within the limits of all these yearly meetings great 
exertions have been used to prepossess the minds of 
friends against Elias Hicks, and the great body of 
Friends in Pennsylvania and in New- York. It is not 
at all a matter of wonder or surprise, that many of 
them should be persuaded that he had departed from 
the true faith, when they are gravely informed that 
such is the fact by ministers and elders, and those 
whom they have been accustomed to behold in the light 
of fathers in the Church ; when such as these, and\ 
friends from the good old mother church of England, 
give themselves the liberty of pronouncing him a 
i; deist,*' an i; infidel," (words often used without any 
12 



00 

precise or definite meaning, but well calculated to 
alarm the timid and credulous,) and even describe him 
as a demon transformed into an angel of light. 

Such representations, coming from such authority, is 
well calculated to alarm the unsuspecting members of 
the society, who conscious of their own integrity, can- 
not easily suspect friends of such standing, of prevari- 
cation or perversion of the truth. Thus many have 
been unconsciously borne along with the current of 
orthodoxy, when it has run with force and velocity, 
whose opinions and feelings are in harmony with those 
of Elias Hicks. This is known to be the case in many 
places. But in time, more correct information will 
place the truth in its proper light, and the veil will fall 
from the eyes of those who have been blinded by mis- 
representation. 

The true state of the eight yearly meetings on this 
continent, will claim a brief notice. Of these, that of 
New- York, was supposed to contain at the time of the 
separation, nearly 20,000 members, of whom about 
three-fourths, more or less, adhere to the ancient, estab- 
lished order, and with whom Elias Hicks is in unity. 
The remaining one-fourth, have separated, in most in- 
stances, from the established meetings, of their 
own choice, and set up meetings of their own, 
contrary to established usage ; and have been busily 
employed since the yearly meeting of 1828, going 
through the ^ham process of disowning the majority as 
£t separatist," or for having " gone off." 

Philadelphia yearly meeting is much larger than 
N. York; and was supposed to contain nearly 30,000 
members ; who are divided nearly in the same relative 
proportion : three-fourths being attached to the organ- 
ized yearly meeting, and one fourth orthodox. In most 
places within the compass of this yearly meeting, the 
orthodox have separated from the established meetings 
in the same manner, as mentioned above, and have 



91 

pursued the same system of pretended disownments 
against those from whom they have separated. 

Ohio and Indiana yearly meetings, are both large; 
and are nearly equally divided. Ohio has a majority of 
Friends, and Indiana of orthodox. Both taken together, 
their numbers are believed to approach very near to 
equality. 

Baltimore yearly meeting, nearly all Friends. 
\bout one tenth separated from the body in 1828. 

I am not sufficiently informed of the number of 
members constituting the yearly meeting of New Eng- 
land, to speak with confidence. But from the informa- 
tion posse: sed, 1 presume it does not differ materially 
from that of Baltimore. Though no division has taken 
place in that yearly meeting, it is well known that 
there are a large number of its members, whose opin- 
ions are in unity with ancient principles, as professed 
by Elias Hicks. 

North Carolina, and Virginia yearly meetings, are 
both very small. The former has been greatly dimin- 
ished in numbers, by emigrations to the western states. 
Both taken together, would nut it is believed, out-num- 
ber the monthly meeting of New-York. No division has 
taken place in either of them. Indeed they are too 
small to admit of a division. 

From a view of the whole ground, it will be seen 
how far these yearly meetings, enumerated in the Tes- 
timony, " are united in the faith and fellowship of the 
gospel." It is a question beyond dispute, that a great 
majority of friends in the United States, are in unity 
with Elias Hicks. It cannot be supposed that friends 
in Europe, are possessed of correct information on the 
subject of the division in this country, or of the real opi- 
nions of the great body of friends here. For the most 
part they have only heard one side of the question ; and 
therefore cannot be in a situation to come to a correct 
judgement on the matter in dispute. 



&2 

23. " For a number of years past, many of his 
friends have been deeply exercised on his account, and 
have been concerned from time to time, tenderly to 
admonish and warn him ; but he being in a confident 
state of mind, .heir admonitions have not had the de- 
sired effect." 

This may be partly true: that some friends have been 
" deeply exercised," in devising ways and means to de- 
stroy his religious character and standing as a minister, 
we have abundant evidence. But the assertion, that 
any have been rightly concerned to admonish and warn 
him, can scarcely be credited. Warn him, of what ? Of 
the consequences of dedicating his life and his talents to 
the service of God his Creator ? We are among the 
number of those, who never believed that any peculiarity 
in his doctrines was the primary cause of the persecution 
with which he has been assailed. They are the same 
in substance with those of our ancient friends, and very 
much the same we distinctly recollect to ha\e heard 
from him, for more than 25 years. But his testimony 
against the use of the produce of the slave's labor, and 
against the popular associations of the present age, for 
evangelizing the world, applied so closely to the prac- 
tice of some within the pale of our own society, that they 
could not receive it. Hence envy and resentment, 
usurped the place of that contrition and repentance, 
which would have been an effectual remedy for the dis- 
ease. Hence also, occasion was sought for grounds of 
accusation against him. But, like Daniel of old, none 
could be found, except concerning the law of his God. 
Thus have arisen the charges of unsoundness of doctiine ; 
— and aU the whining complaints of undervaluing the 
•scriptures, departing from the true faith, denying the di- 
vinity of Christ ; and the whole catalogue of crimina- 
tions, winch have been poured forth against him within 
the last eight or ten years. In some instances, the 
smaller luminaries, were chagrined at being eclipsed by 



this greater light ; and some of these were known *c 

cretly to encourage the circulation of reports, calculated 

to lessen the influence, and lower the standing of Elias 

Hicks. 

24. " And the support which he received from 

many of his adherents, prevented the timely exercise of 
the discipline in his case, especially in the Monthly and 
Quarterly meeting of which he was a member." 

That is to say, it was not in the power of a few dis- 
satisfied individuals, to persuade the members of the 
monthly meeting where he belonged, and who could judge 
from their own knowledge, that he was either differ- 
ent in doctrine, or in practice, from what they had known 
him to be for many years. They could, therefore, see 
no just cause for withdrawing their confidence from a 
man whom they always approved. They adhered to 
him, because he adhered to the principles of Christianity, 
both in theory and practice, maugre all the noise and 
bustle that was made by his opposers. But, if the dis- 
cipline was to be made to bear upon him at all, where 
was it to be exercised, but in the " monthly meeting to 
which he belonged ?" There was no other tribunal on 
earth, competent to deal with him, for real or supposed 
offences against the discipline of the society. 

25. " But the separation taking place at our last 
meeting, and this monthly meeting being now in a situ- 
ation to extend the necessary care therein ; the same has 
been duly attended to, according to the order of our so- 
ciety, to convince him of his errors." 

" This monthly meeting," as it is called, is composed 
of about one twelfth of the original members of West- 
bury monthly meeting, say ten men ; and one twenty- 
fifth of those of Jericho,* or three men ; who separated 
themselves from said meetings ; and who were moulded 
into one body, by those who separated from the quarterly 



* These two monthly meetings number, nearly 600 members. 



94 

meeting ; and dignified with the name of " the Monthly 
Meeting of Westbury and Jericho." But no such meet- 
ing is known " in the order of our society." This is the 
meeting that is " now in a situation to extend the ne- 
cessary care." The monthly meeting to which Eiias 
Hicks belonged, aided by Westbury quarterly meeting, 
could not, when united, according to their own shewing, 
effect what this little fraction of the two monthly meet- 
ings, is now quite " in a situation" to achieve alone. It 
is marvellous what a small number can accomplish, 
when placed " in a situation" to exercise all their pow- 
ers. This is " the meeting" which in its wisdom, saw 
fit to send an order, recalling Elias Hicks from his late 
western journey, though his own monthly and quarterly 
meetings, whose certificate of approbation he carried 
with him, were perfectly satisfied with his continuing his 
visit, according tc bis original prospect. This is the 
meeting too, which has seen meet to issue a testimony of 
disownment against Elias Hicks, though by their own 
previous act of separation, the members of it had de- 
prived themselves of all jurisdiction in the case. Their 
whole proceedings in relation to Elias Hicks, are so per- 
fectly absurd, and I had almost said, foolish, that future 
generations will look back upon them with wonder and 
astonishment. * 

26. " Which having been in like manner rejected 
by him, it becomes our incumbent duty, for the clearing 
ofttuth, and our religious society form the imputation 
of his unsound opinions, and the reproach thereby 
brought upon it, to testify and declare, that they are 
not, nor eves have been, the doctrines of the society of 
Friends." 



* The most singular act of this little company was their attempt to re- 
call him from his western journey. It is a real curiosity. It forcibly re- 
minds us of the comparison used in the New Testament. — " It is like 
children sitting in the market place, and calling to their fellows, and 
saying, we have piped unto you and you hare not danced ; we have 
mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.'' 



95 

They have been contending with a shadow — a phan- 
tom of their own creation — which exists no where but in 
the imaginations of those whose zeal has greatly ex- 
ceeded s heir knowledge — and they declare against that 
phantom in the person of Elias Hicks. The doctrine 
really inculcated by him, we have seen, are those 
preached by the Apostles and primitive friends. And 
while these men have been busied in forming a carica- 
ture of something that bears no resemblance to him, 
they have been no better employed, than those who 
" beat the air." 

27. (See Testimony, page 10.) 

As well might they pretend to disown Elias Hicks from 
the society of Jesuits, as to separate him from their com- 
munion, to which he never claimed allegiance. But to 
disown him, from the society of Friends, happened not 
to be within the jurisdiction of "the monthly meeting of 
Westbury and Jericho," so called. The society of 
Friends will claim him as one of its brightest ornaments, 
as long as it continues to shed its light upon the world. 

And now having finished the examination of this tes- 
timony, which was intended as an excommunication 
against Elias Hicks, and as a brief expose of the prin- 
cipal accusations, which have been circulated against 
him, I shall bring this review to a close with a few 
general observations. Though I have canvassed this 
extraordinary document with perfect freedom, and ex- 
posed the fallacy of the charges it contains, yet I hope 
without the appearance of harshness or severity. And 
if in any instance I have treated the arguments and 
positions assumed by our opposers unfairly, it was unin- 
tentionally. As it regards myself personally as a man, 
I have no cause of controversy with them individually, 
or as a'body. To some of those who are called ortho- 
dox friends, lam bound by the strongest ties of friendship 
and gratitude. Among the' number is a brother, whose 
solid-worth, and sound integrity I fully appreciate. 



But it must be remembered that my opinions and 
my principles are my own* And I conscientiously be- 
lieve they are founded in truth. And no earthly consi- 
derations ought to deter me from defending them, when 
a suitable occasion calls for the performance of this 
duty. And such I have deemed the present to be. 
The performance is exclusively my own : and no man, 
is accountable for any thing it contains, but myself. I 
have chosen to prefix my name to it, because in these 
fruitful times of controversy, I am decided in my opin- 
ion, that no man ought either to be afraid or ashamed 
to assume the responsibility of his own performances. 
If my humble labors in this cause, should be instrumen- 
tal, in any degree, in rescuing the religious character of 
this venerable sage, and christian disciple, from unmer- 
ited obloquy, I shall be amply rewarded. And if 
further, any of those who have inadvertently been led 
into opposition to the testimonies of truth delivered by 
him, should be induced to pause, and reflect upon the 
consequences of arraying themselves against a living 
gospel ministry ; I shall not have labored in vain. 

In conclusion, I would repeat the words of the 
Prophet and Psalmist, that ye " Touch not the Lord's 
anointed, and do his prophets no harm," (I. Cron. 16 — 
22. Ps. 105 — 15,) " For in the time of trouble he shall 
hide them in his pavilion ; in the secret of his taber- 
nacle shall he hide them," (Ps. 27 — 5) and neither 
divination nor enchantment shall prevail against them- 



FINIS. 



=i^t=ni=n^EiEiC=iIEi I=TlEiI^I=iI=ir^^gI=iI3I=Tl=^i^g 




REVIEW 



OF THE 



TESTIMONY 



ISSUED BY THE 

ORTHODOX SECEDERS FROM THE MONTHLY MEETINGS OF 
WESTBURY AND JERICHO, 

AGAINST 

ELIAS HICKS. 



BY EVAN LEWIS. 




NEW-YORK : 
PRINTED BY A. MING, JR. BEEKMAN 

Two doors below Pearl-street. 

1829. 



FOft PUBLISHING BY SUBSCRIPTION, 
THE 

" WORKS OF ISAAC PEWBritfGTOtf." 



At no former period, since the rise of 'the Society of Friends, has the spirit 
of inquiry among its members, generally, been so fully awakened. A desire is 
manifested, to examine, and to understand for themselves, the principles and 
doctrines, held, and promulgated by the founders of the society. And, as a 
standard work of intrinsic merit, setting forth and illustrating these doctrines and 
principles, the writings of Isaac Pennington, are inferior to none extant. They 
have never been published in this country, and there is not a copy for sale in any 
book store in New- York. For clearness of vision, soundness of judgment, and 
depth of religious experience, he was probably not excelled by any of those 
" sons of the morning," who were instrumental, in the Lord's hand, in gather- 
ing a distinct and peculiar people, to the One True and Spiritual Teacher. 



CONDITIONS. 






The work will be comprised in four Octavo volumes, of abo^e 500 pages each; 
and will be printed on good paper, and type, and furnished to subscribers, neatly 
bound and lettered, at $9 the sett, or $8 bound in boards : payable on delivery. 
The price of the London edition of the same quality of paper, type and bind- 
ing, is $15. 

It will be put to press as soon as the subscriptions will warrant the publica- 
tion. 

Those who procure ten subscribers, '. become responsible for them, will 
be entitled to the tenth copy ; and so in proportion for a greater or less num- 
ber. 

Subscriptions received at 420 Pearl-street, New- York; and 6 North-Eigbth- 
street, Philadelphia. 



«CC <C« 



m 



C *^C 



f CC cC 

Cccc c c^r 
£.CC. c 



€(C c 
Ccc c 



J3C" C 

tfC c 
I c 

J^ c 

c c 

C c 

re c 



- 



cc c 

/ CC CC € 

Z CC a < 

1 < cl 

cC CM c c c 

: C • c£ •- £ 

t Ck c 
b*~ « a c '<■ 

<x \ <t e c 

cTC C 

-e cc re c ■ 
<r cc r • cc 



p<XC - c 

pxcac 
Cccc c 
Cccccc < 

Cccc •< 
Cccc < 
Cccc 

tree. 

Ccoa Cc< 

care dc< 

Ccc 

<SC€ < 

CCCCC- 



CCC 

rcc 

ccc 

ccc 
ccc 



ccc 

cc 

cc 

cc 
cc 

c c 



cere cccit 



^c CCC c c 

C C<^ CC 

c S^ccc 
c ccc:cc 
c ItX c c 

S c «&£ : c < 



c 



-. cC cccc 

: C&. ' er o 

C CC... C C 

> f^ ct c - 



:: OEl'cc ccxj 

£ CCC €0( 

c oecc cic 

::C C«Ccc C c 

£ C qpc c ■■: ( 
C CC C c c c 

C CC C C C - 

CC «(( 
c C ccc cc c: c 

C C ccccr Cr 



cC <£|K cc c «C 
cc ccc. cc c: cc <C 

cc ciccc croc cc 
C C CC cc cc ox cc 



cc < 

CC r 

£■;-. W ^ 
>..c. c 
! cc o 

.Lc cccc 
^cvcCcc 

c v CCCc 

^ cccc 

CCcc 

^ cccc 

« ^Ccc. 

cccc 

" cccc 



cV .^^ 



i c c . ^ c - 7 rC c CC c« 

c c'a ^ c CC c ccc^ 

cc' cCc ^cc cc 

cc c - cc. c ^ Vex c cc Ci 

CCC < \ rfC'0 C<T « 

C cC ^ c cc cc cc 

C5 ■ ; crfec <^c 



cc cc 
cc cc 
cc cc 

<c cc 



C C CC C c c 

e.C c.u c. c 

CC C( c< c< c 

C C C c c <? 

c C CC (« cc 

: C CC> c 

c C C C 6 c 
C. CC c C: i 

C C C C ■ c: CC 
. CCCcC t 
c c<o cc " 

C CC c cc « 



CCC CC 

c c c cc 
cc c c cc 



c c CCC 

: C C CC 

>/ c c c c 

CC CC 

^ c c c 



h ^ >>c cc xcc c ccc< 

C> cc CO >,.-'/-- r^rTrrr* 



t^&xxc m 



fe"^- ^^ cc ccc cx<c 

k^^^V. C,cc 



<T CCrc C CC C 
cc ccccc C CC C. 

cc C'< c - ' c ~ c cc < 

c 



cc cc 

c c <c< 

CC CC 

CC <CC 

cc cc 

c c < cC 

cc cc 

re CC 



cccc 
^c 

<> C c 



CC C 



c C 



cc < 

CC c 

(c < 

< i < 



cc r< 
C cc 

< <xc 






^r 


^^ 


«C 


«F 




^ 




1 9 


<r 


r < e C *C <: 


^ 


cc ^ 


CT 


<< £ 


<: < 


SS? <v 


r 


c 5$c o 


r r 


c ^<: V5 


> 


C SK C 


* 


e <CC 5- 


. 


«c SI 






CC < 
c cc « 

'( c 



c c<c 

CC 



CC 
re 

- 5 c cc , 

I : 

S cc 

CC < 
cc J 









» 



CTc< c r 

CC< c c 
*& C « 



• < cc 

. c cc 

^ C c CC 

, C re 

S < CC 



C v^ 

C Cc 

c c 

C CC 

C C 

c- c 

LC < c 
Cc ( <■ 

• ' r 



c Cc 



^% 



<r < 

Cc 

cc 

- <c 

CC 

CC 

CC 
^CCc 

c cc 



CC 

CC 

CC 
CC 
CC 

c<L 
cc 



CdC 



cc cc 

CC CC 
>o <c 
CC CC 

c^ cc 

<CC CC 
« CC c« 



<CC < 
cCdC 

' c:c 

CC 

- <:. c 



<r cc 



C cC 

C < 

c « 

C «C c 



. cc <- < c 



oC< cc 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



019 566 785 8 









■ 



h 



■m 



^C_ 

n 



